9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arliamentary legislation, is not followed, it has to be regarded, that the Revenue has given up the said witnesses, so that the reliance by the CCE, on the said statements, has to be regarded as misguided, and the said statements have to be eschewed from consideration, as they would not be relevant for proving the truth of the contents thereof. Respondent no. 2 is directed to adjudicate the SCN issued to the writ petitioner by following the procedure contemplated by Section 9D of the Act - matter on remand. - CWP No. 12749 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2016 - M. Jeyapaul And Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ. For the Petitioner : Suman Jain, Advocate For the Respondent :-- JUDGMENT M. Jeyapaul, J. 1. Heard the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. On asking of the Court Mr. V.K. Kaushal, Advocate took notice for the respondents. 3. The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent no.2 before whom Show Cause Notice No. DZU/LRU/INV/C/CE/02/2011/1764 dated 9.4.2011 is presently pending adjudication to follow the mandate of Section 9D(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be admitted in evidence in the interests of justice. (2) The provision of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to any proceeding under this Act, other than a proceeding before a Court, as they apply in relation to a proceeding before a Court. 8. A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 9D of the Act makes it clear that clauses (a) and (b) of the said sub-section set out the circumstances in which a statement, made and signed by a person before the Central Excise Officer of a gazetted rank, during the course of inquiry or proceeding under the Act, shall be relevant,for the purpose of proving the truth of the facts contained therein. 9. Section 9D of the Act came in from detailed consideration and examination, by the Delhi High Court, in J.K. Cigarettes Ltd. vs. CCE, 2009 (242) ELT 189 (Del). Para 12 of the said decision clearly holds that by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 9D, the provisions of sub-section (1) thereof would extend to adjudication proceedings as well. There can, therefore, be no doubt about the legal position that the procedure prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 9D is required to be scrupulously followed, as mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudicating authority under Section 9D, if he chooses to invoke clause (a) of sub-section (1) thereof, would be pregnable to challenge. While the judgment of the Delhi High Court in J K Cigarettes Ltd. (supra) holds that the said challenge could be ventilated in appeal, the petitioner has also invited attention to an unreported short order of the Supreme Court in UOI and another vs. GTC India and others in SLP (C) No. 2183/1994 dated 03/01/1995 wherein it was held that the order passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 9D of the Act could be challenged in writ proceedings as well. Therefore, it is clear that the adjudicating authority cannot invoke Section 9D(1)(a) of the Act without passing a reasoned and speaking order in that regard, which is amenable to challenge by the assessee, if aggrieved thereby. 15. If none of the circumstances contemplated by clause (a) of Section 9D (1) exists, clause (b) of Section 9D (1) comes into operation. The said clause prescribes a specific procedure to be followed before the statement can be admitted in evidence. Under this procedure, two steps are required to be followed by the adjudicating authority, under clause (b) of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tely invoke clause (a) of Section 9D(1). In all other cases, if he wants to rely on the said statement as relevant, for proving the truth of the contents thereof, he has to first admit the statement in evidence in accordance with clause (b) of Section 9D(1). For this, he has to summon the person who had made the statement, examine him as witness before him in the adjudicating proceeding, and arrive at an opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in the interests of justice. 19. In fact, Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, clearly sets out the sequence of evidence, in which evidence-in-chief has to precede cross-examination, and cross-examination has to precede re-examination. 20. It is only, therefore, (i) after the person whose statement has already been recorded before a gazetted Central Excise officer is examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority, and (ii) the adjudicating authority arrives at a conclusion, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the statement deserves to be admitted in evidence, that the question of offering the witness to the assessee, for cross-examination, can arise. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicating the matter. Neither, needless to say, would be open to the Revenue to rely on the said statements to support the case sought to be made out in the Show Cause Notice. (iv) Once examination-in-chief, of the makers of the statements, on whom the Revenue seeks to rely in adjudication proceedings, takes place, and a copy thereof is made available to the assessee, it would be open to the assessee to seek permission to cross-examine the persons who have made the said statements, should it choose to do so. In case any such request is made by the assessee, it would be incumbent on the adjudicating authority, i.e. on Respondent No2 to allow the said request, as it is trite and well-settled position in law that statements recorded behind the back of an assessee cannot be relied upon, in adjudication proceedings, without allowing the assessee an opportunity to test the said evidence by cross-examining the makers of the said statements. If at all authority is required for this proposition, reference may be made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arya Abhushan Bhandar v U.O.I., 2002(143)ELT 25 (SC), Swadeshi Polytex v Vollector, 2000 (122) ELT 641 (SC). 25. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
