2010 (4) TMI 556 - AT - Central Excise

Natural Justice most relevant witness for case not appearing for cross examination and matter decided based o other evidence. Held that there was violation of natural justice principle. Department s plea that cross examination was not necessary rejected as remand order Tribunal had given specific direction for that purpose and department had not challenged same. Further held that transaction taking place in 1994 and department conducting enquiries about same in 1996 after personal hearing held that report of such belated enquiry could not be relied on.

Summary

Issues: Alleged irregular Modvat credit, penalty imposition, confiscation of goods and property, necessity of cross-examination, violation of natural justice.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved a case where a consignment of 6mm CTD bars loaded on a Bullock Cart was intercepted during transit without proper duty paying documents. The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand and irregular credit amounts, imposed penalties, and ordered confiscation of seized goods. The appellants challenged the decision regarding the alleged irregular Modvat credit, penalties, and confiscation of property. The Tribunal remanded the matter twice due to procedural irregularities, including denial of cross-examination and violation of natural justice principles.

In the first round, the Tribunal remanded the case as the order was based on a verification report not made available to the appellants. In the subsequent remand, the adjudicating authority disallowed the Modvat credit, imposed penalties, and confirmed confiscation based on incomplete evidence and delayed inquiries. The appellants argued for cross-examination to challenge the findings, citing precedents emphasizing the importance of due process.

The appellants contended that the adjudication exceeded the show-cause notice scope and relied on defective enquiry reports. The Respondent argued that admissions were made, and the seized goods lacked proper invoices, justifying the decisions. The Tribunal emphasized the need for cross-examination to ensure fairness and adherence to natural justice principles, setting aside the impugned order due to the absence of cross-examination, which violated the Tribunal's previous directive.

The Tribunal found the statement of a key witness not corroborated and the delayed inquiry unreliable, emphasizing the importance of cross-examination for a fair adjudication process. The failure to allow cross-examination and reliance on incomplete evidence led to a violation of natural justice, warranting the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeals. The judgment highlighted the significance of procedural fairness and adherence to due process in administrative decisions, ensuring the protection of rights and interests of the parties involved.