2015 (9) TMI 91 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of duty - Imposition of interest and equivalent penalty - Violation of principle of natural justice - Opportunity of cross examination not granted - Held that - Certain documents has resumed from the third party and statements of third parties have been recorded. The case has been made out by the Revenue on the basis of the document resumed from the third parties and corroborative statement of those parties as well as to some extent the statement of Shri Mukesh Benara and the Shailender Kumar Singhal, Senior Sales Officer of BAPL. It is admitted fact that appellants sought cross examination of the third parties whose statements has been relied by the Adjudicating Authority but the Adjudicating Authority has not granted cross examination which is in gross violation of principal of natural justice - Therefore for fair trial, the matter requires cross examination of the person whose statements have been relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority. With these observation, we are of the view that after setting aside the impugned order, the matter should go back to the Adjudicating Authority - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged clandestine removal of finished goods.
2. Denial of cross-examination leading to violation of natural justice.
3. Admissibility of documents seized from buyers.
4. Requirement of fair trial and cross-examination for reliability of statements.

Issue 1: Alleged Clandestine Removal of Finished Goods
The case involved appeals against confirmed duty demands on M/s Benara Automotives (P) Ltd. and M/s Benara Valves Ltd. for alleged clandestine removal of finished goods. The appellants argued that they were not provided with relied-upon documents initially, affecting their defense. The Adjudicating Authority did not allow cross-examination of witnesses, leading to a violation of natural justice. The appellants contended that even if admissions in statements were considered, the demand amount was minimal, keeping their turnover below the SSI exemption limit. The learned Counsel cited relevant judgments to support their argument.

Issue 2: Denial of Cross-Examination and Violation of Natural Justice
The denial of cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were relied upon was a crucial point in the case. The Adjudicating Authority's refusal for cross-examination was deemed a gross violation of the principle of natural justice. The Hon'ble Tribunal emphasized the importance of fair trial and cited precedents where cross-examination was considered essential for reliability. The case was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fair trial, directing them to allow cross-examination and consider the defense reply before passing an appropriate order.

Issue 3: Admissibility of Documents Seized from Buyers
The Revenue based its case on documents seized from buyers of the appellants, arguing that these documents implicated the appellants. The Authorized Representative contended that the documents were issued by the appellants, as confirmed by the buyers' statements. The argument was made that wherever the appellants' initials were present, those documents belonged to them. The issue of admissibility and ownership of the seized documents was a point of contention between the parties.

Issue 4: Requirement of Fair Trial and Cross-Examination for Reliability of Statements
The Tribunal acknowledged that documents seized from third parties and statements recorded were crucial in the case. However, the denial of cross-examination of these third parties was deemed a violation of natural justice. Both parties presented their arguments regarding the necessity of cross-examination for a fair trial and the reliability of statements. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a fair trial, including cross-examination, to ensure the reliability of evidence and directed the case to be remanded for proper adjudication. Relevant judgments were cited to support the requirement of cross-examination for a just decision.