9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (7) TMI 945 - AT - Central Excise
Issues involved: Application of mind, arbitrary exercise of powers by adjudicating authority, failure to offer cross-examination opportunity, non-appearance of witnesses, confirmation of demand, penalty imposition, goods confiscation, lack of reasoning in order.
The judgment pertains to an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, where the impugned order was challenged primarily on the grounds of lack of application of mind and arbitrary exercise of powers by the adjudicating authority. The records revealed that despite specific directions from the Apex Court in earlier rounds of litigation, the authority failed to offer the appellants an opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were relied upon during the investigation. This failure led to subsequent remands and delays in the case. Although notices were issued for cross-examination, the witnesses did not appear, leading the authority to conclude that their non-appearance was due to their relationship with the appellants. Subsequently, the authority confirmed the demand, imposed penalties, and ordered goods confiscation without addressing the raised issues or providing reasoning for its decision. The adjudicating authority's failure to analyze the evidence, consider the raised points, and provide proper reasoning indicated an arbitrary exercise of power. The judgment emphasized the importance of a thorough analysis of the record, consideration of raised points, and the provision of reasoned findings by the adjudicating authority. Given the prolonged duration of the case since the issuance of the show cause notice in 1978, the Tribunal urged cooperation from the appellants and prompt action from the adjudicating authority for expeditious resolution before the end of the year. Ultimately, the appeal was disposed of with a direction to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for a fresh decision by the concerned authority, emphasizing compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court and the Tribunal. It was clarified that no opinion on the merits of the case was expressed in the judgment.
|
