2024 (4) TMI 427 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine Removal - requirement of cross-examination of witnesses - entire case was made out on the basis of the printout taken from the computer lying in the factory premises and the statements of the various persons - Section 36B of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT - From the plain reading of the Section 9D, it can be seen that it is not the whims of the Adjudicating authority to allow or reject the request of cross-examination. As per the above statutory provision, if the appellant dispute the statements which are relied upon for adjudication it is incumbent on the adjudicating authority to allow the cross-examination of the witnesses and thereafter if the outcome of cross-examination is in consistence with the statement given by the witnesses, the same can be admitted as evidence. Therefore, the cross-examination is necessary for arriving at a fair trial of the case. The impugned order set aside - appeals are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority, for passing a fresh order, after allowing the cross-examination of the witnesses and considering the further submission to be made by the appellant.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against Order-In-Original confirming Excise Duty, penalty, interest, and personal penalty for clandestine removal of goods.

Summary:
The appeals were directed against an Order-In-Original confirming Excise Duty, penalty, interest, and personal penalty on the charge of clandestine removal of goods. The appellant argued that the case was based on a computer printout and statements of various persons, but the provisions of Section 36B of the Central Excise Act regarding the computer printout were not followed. The appellant also requested cross-examination of witnesses, which was rejected. The Adjudicating authority's refusal to allow cross-examination was challenged, citing relevant case laws. The Assistant Commissioner for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. The Tribunal noted that cross-examination is mandatory under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act and that it is necessary for a fair trial. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed by way of remand for a fresh order after allowing cross-examination of witnesses and considering further submissions by the appellant. The decision was pronounced in open court on 05.04.2024.