2018 (2) TMI 908 - AT - Central Excise

Principles of Natural justice - Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - There is no requirement in terms of Section 9D for the noticee to give elaborate justification before requesting for cross-examination - The cross-examination in case could not be conducted, the reason for the same as mentioned in Section 9D itself has to be recorded - the impugned order suffers due to violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly set aside. The matter has to go back to the Original Authority for a fresh decision after complying the provision of Section 9D and other related regulations before adjudication - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in proceedings before lower authorities.

Analysis:
The case involved 9 appeals against a common impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals - I), Central Excise, New Delhi, dated 06/11/2015. The main appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Seiko brand bath fittings liable to Central Excise duty, was investigated for not discharging proper duty. Proceedings were initiated against various persons, including the main appellant, for unaccounted clearance of excisable goods and imposition of penalties. The Original Authority confirmed a Central Excise duty liability of ?47,67,716/- and imposed penalties. The seized goods were to be confiscated with an option to redeem on payment. The appellants raised a defense submission alleging violation of principles of natural justice, specifically regarding the admissibility of statements and the right to cross-examination under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The appellants argued that the lower authorities' heavy reliance on statements without providing an opportunity for cross-examination violated principles of natural justice, rendering the order bad in law. They contended that the affected party should be allowed to cross-examine the persons giving statements under Section 9D before such statements are considered as evidence. The learned Counsel asserted that they had a strong case on merit and requested an opportunity to defend their case before the Adjudicating Authority.

In response, the Authorized Representative argued that the confessional statements and records forming the basis of the demand were admissible evidence under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He maintained that the cross-examination of persons giving such statements was not mandatory and cited case laws to support his argument. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the Original Authority's finding regarding the noticees' failure to provide adequate reasons for cross-examination was not supported by law. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with Section 9D, which outlines the procedure for admitting evidence and allowing cross-examination when requested.

The Tribunal referred to various case laws cited by the appellants from different High Courts and Tribunals to support their argument regarding the violation of principles of natural justice. Considering the legal position presented by these authorities, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order suffered from a violation of principles of natural justice and was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Original Authority for a fresh decision after ensuring compliance with Section 9D and other related regulations. The appellants were to be provided with adequate opportunity to present their case, and the appeals were allowed by way of remand.