2017 (3) TMI 226 - AT - Central Excise

Natural justice - cross examination of the witnesses whose statements were relied upon in the SCN was rejected - Held that - As per Section 9B of Central Excise Act, 1944 even if the cross examination is not asked for it is obligatory on the part of the adjudicating authority to cross examine the persons whose statements were recorded - the adjudicating authority are directed to conduct the cross examination of the witnesses as requested by the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Request for cross-examination of witnesses in a show-cause notice.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the order of the Principal Commissioner, communicated by the Additional Commissioner, rejecting the appellant's request for cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were relied upon in the show-cause notice. The appellant argued that the request for cross-examination is in accordance with Section 9B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which mandates cross-examination of persons whose statements are relied upon. The appellant cited relevant judgments to support their argument (Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI, Arya Abhushan Bhandar vs. UOI, Swadesh Polytex Ltd.). The revenue, represented by Shri S.V. Nair, reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

Upon careful consideration of the submissions and perusal of records, the Tribunal found that the appellants had indeed requested cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements were relied upon in the show-cause notice. Referring to Section 9B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal noted that even if cross-examination is not explicitly requested, it is obligatory for the adjudicating authority to cross-examine the persons whose statements were recorded. The Tribunal highlighted that this issue has been addressed in various judgments by the Supreme Court and High Court, as cited by the appellant's counsel.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the request for cross-examination of the witnesses is legitimate and must be allowed. Therefore, the adjudicating authority was directed to conduct the cross-examination of the witnesses as requested by the appellant. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The judgment was pronounced in court on 02/02/2017.