9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir statements cannot be used for the purpose of sustaining allegation. Therefore, once the statements of the transporters and commission agent are ignored, there is nothing much left to sustain the allegation against the appellant. - Decided against the Revenue - Appeal No. E/51513/2014-EX. (SM) with CO/52683/2014 - Final Order No.50951/2016 - Dated:- 15-2-2016 - Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) Shri Vaibhav Bhatnagar, D.R. for the appellant Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Per R.K. Singh: Revenue is in appeal against order-in-appeal dated 12.11.2013 only to the extent it pertains to M/s Uday Sponge and Power P. Ltd. (the respondent) against which the primary adjudicating authority confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant No. 1. All the above transporters in their statements recorded by the department had in general stated that they are loading and transporting the excisable goods namely Sponge Iron, from the factory premises of various manufacturers situated in Bhanpuri, Urla and Sitara. I found that none of transporters mentioned supra has admitted in their statements recorded by the department specifically that they have loaded and transported the said alleged goods without the cover of invoices from the factory premises of the appellant No. 1. Further, no Loading advices were found with the said transporters in respect of alleged quantity of sponge iron. ............................... ................................ 21. From the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substantial and corroborative evidences against Appellant No. 1 and accordingly find no merit in the impugned order confirming demand of duty from Appellant No. 1. Held accordingly. 5. I find that the appellant never confessed having removed any goods clandestinely. As the cross examination of transporters and the commission agent was denied and having regard to the fact that such denial certainly caused prejudice to the appellant as their statements were relied upon for the purpose of sustaining the allegation against the appellant by the primary adjudicating authority, the minimum consequence of denial of such cross examination is that their statements cannot be used for the purpose of sustaining allegation. In the case of Dharampal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e person against whom the action is taken. Therefore, every violation of a facet of natural justice may not lead to the conclusion that order passed is always null and void. The validity of the order has to be decided on the touchstone of prejudice . The ultimate test is always the same, viz., the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Once the statements of the transporters and commission agent are ignored, there is nothing much left to sustain the allegation against the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) has in the above quoted paragraphs, amply brought out as to how the allegation of clandestinely removal of goods against the appellant is not sustainable. That the allegation of clandestine removal cannot be sustained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
