9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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. - Appeal No.E/1172/2008-SM - Order No. A/10338 / 2015 - Dated:- 17-4-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, J. For The Appellant: Shri T.K. Sikdar, Authorised Representative For The Respondent: Shri K.I. Vyas, Advocate Per: P.K. Das 1. Revenue filed this appeal ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-novo adjudication with the direction that the case may be considered afresh after granting cross examination of the persons as well as following the principles of natural justice. In de-novo proceedings, by the impugned adjudication order, the Joint Commissioner again confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount on the Respondent and also imposed penalty in the Director and Supervisor-cum-Clerk of the Respondent Company. It has also confiscated the seized goods. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order. Hence, Revenue filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the Show Cause Notice dt.03.05.1993 in respect of seizure of the goods, has already been adjudicated by OIO No.29/Adj/96/OA, dt.14.11.1996, 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. I agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). It is noted that the Deputy Commissioner, C.Excise already adjudicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oticed that 9014 pcs of processed MMF admeasuring 832748 L.Mtrs valued at ₹ 1,70,71,352/- were cleared to the respective parties by the appellants without payment of duty due thereon. It was also noticed that 663 pcs of processed MMF admeasuring 62,551.70 L.Mtrs were lying in fully furnished and ready to dispatch condition against 38128 L.Mtrs as shown in RG-1 register because the difference was to be cleared without payment of duty. The officers seized the differential pcs i.e. 261 pcs of processed MMF admeasuring 24323.70 L.Mtrs value dat ₹ 5,10,797.70 and handed over to the appellants for safe custody. Also, during the investigations a statement of Shri Mahendra D. Desai was recorded on 17.11.1995 wherein he among other things stated that he was manage of the appellants; that the records were being maintained by Shri Sanjay Kothari, nephew of the Director of the appellants and they got his signatures on them wherever required; that the diaries written in pencil were being maintained by Shri Sanjay Kothari; that goods received under the recovered under the recovered grey challans were processed and cleared by them to the parties as per the directions of the director o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er threat and duress. Reliance has also been placed by the Adjudicating authority on the statement dt.17.11.95 of Shri Mahendra D. Desai where he is purported to have accepted the illicit clearance of the goods of details mentioned in the diaries. I find that even this statement has been retracted by Shri Mahendra D. Desai vide his letter dt.03.09.1998 written in Gujarati wherein he has stated that his statement was recorded in English and he did not know English and therefore he was not aware of the details mentioned in the statement and he signed it without knowing what is written in the statement. No copy of the said statement was given to him. He also requested for recording of his further statement in the matter in view of above. I find that the Adjudicating authority has brushed aside above affidavits and the letter dt.03.09.98 of Shri Mahendra D. Desai and passed the impugned order without discussing the same and without giving any findings thereon. It was also noted that the Appellants time and again asked for cross-examination of the panchas and Shri Mahendra D. Desai to rebut the allegations made in the show cause notice and bring out the truth but the Department failed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
