2019 (3) TMI 938 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - opportuity of cross-examination not granted - principles of natural justice - Held that - In terms of Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944, if the assessee requests for cross-examination, it is incumbent on the Adjudicating Authority to grant cross-examination and after examining the witness, their statements can be relied upon while adjudicating the case. Therefore, without cross-examination of witnesses, passing the impugned order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order after allowing the cross-examination and after granting the personal hearing - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Clandestine removal of goods.

Analysis:
The case revolves around the issue of clandestine removal of goods. The appellant's counsel argued that the case heavily relied on statements from specific individuals, and the appellant had requested cross-examination of these persons, which was denied by the Adjudicating Authority. The counsel contended that without cross-examination, the adjudication would not be legal. The appellant cited precedents such as Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE and Manek Chemicals Pvt. Limited vs. UOI to support the importance of cross-examination in such cases.

The Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order, stating that there was sufficient material to confirm the demand, regardless of the denial of cross-examination. However, upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the reliance on statements from the individuals in question was crucial for confirming the demand. The Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the cross-examination request was deemed a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal referred to Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which mandates granting cross-examination when requested by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh order, emphasizing the need for cross-examination and a proper personal hearing. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to complete the de-novo adjudication within four months from the date of the order, keeping all issues open for consideration.