9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 4 - AT - Central ExcisePrinciples of Natural Justice - CENVAT Credit availed on the documents issuable as registered first stage dealer without supply of the goods - request for cross-examination denied - Held that - The original authority specifically discarded the request for cross examination on the ground that these were not relied upon as documents and statements - It is settled law that the evidence of deposition of the witnesses must be subject to proof during the adjudication proceedings. It would be appropriate for the matter to be remanded back to the original adjudicating authority to comply with the request of the appellant for cross-examination - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Challenge of penalty imposition under rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for enabling CENVAT credit without supplying goods. Request for cross-examination of witnesses denied.
In this case, the appellant challenged the penalty imposed under rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, for allegedly enabling another party to avail CENVAT credit without actually supplying goods. The main noticee, against whom the demand was confirmed, did not appeal, leaving the appellant contesting the penalty. The appellant argued that they had indeed supplied the goods, as reflected in the invoices issued by them. They claimed that the allegations lacked material evidence or corroboration, and their request for cross-examination of witnesses was denied, which they contended was a violation of their rights. The Tribunal observed that the original authority had rejected the request for cross-examination on the basis that the statements were not relied upon as documents. However, it is established legal principle that the evidence of witnesses must be subject to proof during adjudication proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order to the extent of the penalty imposed on the appellant and remanded the matter back to the original authority. The original authority was directed to reconsider the appellant's request for cross-examination to ensure procedural fairness and compliance with the principles of natural justice.
|
