2018 (3) TMI 334 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - cross-examination not allowed - natural justice - Held that - Revenue has relied on the status sheet and the statement of Shri Anil Pahal, who has admitted clandestine removal of goods but Shri Anil Pahal was not examined for cross-examination. In that circumstances, there is gross violation of principles of natural justice - matter needs re-examination - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Duty demanded on clandestine removal of goods
- Imposition of interest and penalties
- Confiscation of seized goods
- Violation of principles of natural justice
- Examination of witnesses
- Notice of hearing to the concerned parties

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against an order demanding duty for clandestine removal of goods, imposing penalties, and confiscating seized items. The case involved M/s Omen Electricals & Gas Appliances Company and M/s Century Enterprises allegedly engaged in clandestine activities. The search conducted revealed incriminating evidence, including a status sheet indicating goods clearance by M/s Century Enterprises. Statements of involved individuals were crucial, with one individual retracting and later withdrawing the retraction. The appellant argued a violation of natural justice principles due to lack of cross-examination of key witnesses. The absence of notice of hearing to M/s Omen was also highlighted.

The appellate authority considered the reliance on the status sheet and statements insufficient to establish clandestine activities conclusively. The retracted statement and lack of examination of a witness for cross-examination raised concerns over procedural fairness. Citing a violation of natural justice principles, the judgment emphasized the need for a thorough examination by the adjudicating authority. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, stressing the importance of providing reasonable opportunities for the appellants to present their case adequately.

In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a comprehensive reevaluation by the adjudicating authority. The judgment underscored the significance of upholding principles of natural justice, ensuring fair proceedings, and granting parties adequate opportunities to present their arguments effectively. The appeals were disposed of through remand, emphasizing the need for a lawful and just resolution in compliance with procedural requirements.