2023 (10) TMI 348 - AT - Central Excise

Fraudulent availment Cenvat credit without receipt of inputs - entire case is based mainly on the statements of various persons - request for cross-examination of those witnesses were not considered properly by the Adjudicating Authority - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - From Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944, it is seen that it is not a choice of the Adjudicating Authority whether to grant cross-examination or otherwise. It is mandate of the statute that the witnesses have to be examined before their statements are relied upon against the assessee in any case. Therefore the Adjudicating Authority must grant cross-examination of the witnesses before passing fresh order. The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner for passing a fresh order that too preferably within a period of four months from the date of this order.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Alleged fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit without receipt of inputs.

Summary:
The case involved alleged fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit without receipt of inputs. The appellant requested cross-examination of witnesses, which was not properly considered by the Adjudicating Authority, leading to a lack of adherence to the principles of natural justice. The appellant cited a similar case where the matter was remanded due to the absence of cross-examination. The Revenue, however, argued that there were sufficient evidences and confessional statements supporting the fraudulent availment of credit. Upon review, it was found that the Adjudicating Authority had not followed the mandate of the statute regarding cross-examination of witnesses. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner for a fresh order, preferably within four months. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to conduct cross-examination of all witnesses before passing a new order, with the flexibility to proceed with a denovo order if necessary.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of granting cross-examination of witnesses in cases involving allegations of fraudulent activities to ensure fairness and adherence to legal procedures.