2015 (8) TMI 342 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation and seizure of goods - Shortage of finished goods - Imposition of penalty - Respondents illicitly cleared the goods from their factory - Cross examination not granted - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the Show Cause Notice dt.03.05.1993 in respect of seizure of the goods, has already been adjudicated, the Deputy Commissioner, Surat. The re-adjudication of the said case done by the Adjudicating authority in the present de-novo adjudication order, cannot be sustained. It is noted that the Deputy Commissioner, C.Excise already adjudicated the Show Cause Notice dt.06.05.1996 vide OIO dt.14.11.1996 and therefore, the confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine in respect of the seized goods by the Adjudicating authority in de-novo adjudication cannot be sustained. Regarding demand of duty along with interest and imposition of penalty by the Show Cause Notice dt.28.01.2000, I find that the Respondent challenged authenticity and the preparation of the Panchnama. It has contended that the demand of duty on the basis of the diary has no nexus with the Respondent s factory. The Respondent also requested for cross examination. Commissioner (Appeals) had discussed the matter in detail on all the issues. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order only on the ground that by not producing the witnesses for cross examination, the Panchnama cannot be treated as invalid evidence. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue stated that Panchnama was prepared in the presence of the representative of the Respondent Company. Therefore, there is no requirement of cross examination of the Panchas. - statement against the assessee cannot be used without giving them opportunity of cross-examining deponent. Cross-examination is a valuable right of accused/noticee in quasi-judicial proceedings, which can have adverse consequences for them. - No reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of seized goods and imposition of redemption fine.
2. Demand of duty, interest, and penalty based on Panchnama and diary entries.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the adjudicating order. The case involved the confiscation of seized goods and imposition of redemption fine. The Deputy Commissioner had already adjudicated the Show Cause Notice related to the seizure of goods, making the re-adjudication in the present de-novo order unsustainable. The Commissioner (Appeals) rightly found that the re-adjudication by the Adjudicating authority could not be upheld as the matter had already been settled earlier.

2. The demand of duty, interest, and penalty was based on a Panchnama and diary entries. The Commissioner (Appeals) extensively analyzed the issue, highlighting discrepancies in the records and statements. The Panchnama and statements were retracted by several individuals, alleging coercion and duress during the process. The Adjudicating authority's reliance solely on the Panchnama and statements without allowing cross-examination violated the principles of natural justice. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly emphasized the importance of cross-examination as a fundamental right in quasi-judicial proceedings, citing relevant legal precedents.

3. The Revenue contended that the Panchnama, prepared in the presence of the Respondent Company's representative, did not require cross-examination of the Panchas. However, the absence of witnesses for cross-examination raised doubts about the validity of the evidence. The judgment referenced a case from the Delhi High Court, emphasizing the significance of providing the opportunity for cross-examination to accused parties in such proceedings. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of confiscation of seized goods and the demand of duty, interest, and penalty based on the Panchnama and diary entries. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, including the right to cross-examination, in quasi-judicial proceedings, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.