2018 (3) TMI 248 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - It was alleged that unaccounted finished stock of aluminium ingots weighing 18,503 Kgs valued at ₹ 18,78,592/- was seized along with some documents under a panchnama - principles of natural justice - Held that - It is seen that the show-cause notice is based on the documents recovered and panchnama made during the search of the factory. The show-cause notice also relies on the statements of Shri N.M. Surana. Other than these evidence no evidence has been relied in the show-cause notice. In these circumstances, cross examination of the investigating officers and range officers is irrelevant and has rightly been denied by the Commissioner - The investigating officers and range officers are not witnesses in the impugned show-cause notice and therefore, any cross-examination of these officers would not serve any purposes. As regards the non-supply of documents the impugned order records that the co-noticee Shri N.M. Surana had acknowledged the receipt of the impugned notices along with all the annexures thereof. In these circumstances, it is established that all the relied upon documents were furnished to the appellants and therefore, their request for supply of such documents was not correct. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by entities engaged in the manufacture of aluminium ingots, challenging the seizure of unaccounted finished stock of aluminium ingots and subsequent proceedings initiated by the Central Excise officers.
2. The Settlement Commission rejected the application of the appellants due to alleged lack of true and full disclosure. The Commissioner confirmed the demand, imposed penalties, disallowed Cenvat Credit, and imposed personal penalties.
3. The appellants argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of natural justice, as the Commissioner proceeded without granting cross-examination and disregarded their request to await a decision from the High Court.
4. The Commissioner rejected the request for cross-examination and fixed hearings, leading to the issuance of the impugned order. The appellants withdrew their Writ Petition after the order was issued.
5. The Tribunal noted that the matter was previously remanded with directions to follow principles of natural justice. The request for cross-examination was denied based on the evidence available in the show-cause notice and statements of the appellant.
6. The Tribunal found that the grounds of violation of natural justice were the sole basis for the appeal. It concluded that the denial of cross-examination of investigating and range officers was justified, as they were not witnesses in the show-cause notice. The request for document supply was deemed unnecessary, as acknowledged by the co-noticee.
7. As the appeal was solely based on the violation of natural justice, other grounds raised by the appellants were not considered. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the arguments presented.

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in legal proceedings and emphasizes the significance of relevant evidence and procedural fairness in decision-making.