2024 (6) TMI 620 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty u/r 209 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - failure to provide opportunity for cross-examination u/s Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is found from the impugned Order-In-Order under consideration has been passed wherein the appellant has not participated in the process of adjudication. There are no written submission in the appeal papers nor any request for crossexamination of the person whose statements have been recorded by the appellant. The appellant have never made any request of cross-objection of examination in chief of any of the witnesses - the fact is also noted that no retraction of statement made by him has been found in the appeal papers - the appellant have consciously avoided participating in the adjudication process and now they want that the matter to be decided only on the technical ground that cross-examination was not allowed or permitted under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Imposition of penalty u/s Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rule, 1944 without opportunity for cross-examination u/s Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Summary:
The case involved M/s Pooja Texprints Pvt Ltd, a 100% EOU registered for manufacturing garments and embroidery items under Central Excise Tariff. The department conducted a search resulting in a show cause notice proposing confiscation of goods and recovery of excise duty. The appellant, director of the company, was imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lacs under Rule 209A. The appeal challenged the imposition of penalty without specifying his role in the evasion of duty and without opportunity for cross-examination as per Section 9D.

The appellant argued that the penalty was based on self-inculpatory statements without the chance to cross-examine witnesses. Citing Tribunal decisions, it was contended that duty or penalty cannot be imposed without following Section 9D. The department reiterated the findings of the Order-In-Original.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not participate in the adjudication process, did not request cross-examination, and failed to provide written submissions. Despite multiple hearing notices, the appellant did not attend or respond. The Tribunal found the appellant's contentions vague and unsubstantiated, holding that sufficient opportunity was provided. Referring to a previous Tribunal order, it was observed that the appellant never objected to the non-supply of documents.

Despite being provided multiple opportunities for a personal hearing, the appellant did not cooperate with the adjudication process. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant cannot benefit from technicalities without complying with the law. As the appellant did not participate in the process and now sought relief on technical grounds, the appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the appeal challenging the penalty imposition without cross-examination opportunity u/s Section 9D was dismissed on 14.06.2024.