TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, there is violation of principle of natural justice The matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to grant cross examination of the witnesses sought by the appellant as per Section 9D of the Act - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/60439, 60442, 60443 & 60002/2017 - A/61556-61559/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 18-8-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member ( Judicial ) Shri. Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate- for the appellant Shri. H. Singh, AR- for the respondent ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand has been confirmed against them on the allegation of clandestine removal of goods, on the basis of statement given by Shri. Kishore Aggarwal one of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period April 2008 to June 2009. The matter was adjudicated, demand of duty along with interest was confirmed against the main appellant and penalties of all the appellants were also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellants are before me. 3. Sh. Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and submits that sole evidence on which the case made out against the appellants is the computer printouts and the Hard Dist/pen-drive recovered from the possession of Shri. Lalit Aggarwal and Shri. Vikas Varsheny, CA/ Accountant of M/s IFL and M/s IAPL. He submits that no procedure under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been followed, therefore, the said documents cannot be relied upon to demand duty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed the contentions of the ld. Counsel and submits that in this case the investigation was conducted at the end of M/s IFL and M/s IAPL wherein incriminating documents were recovered and they have admitted that they were indulged in the activity of manufacturing and clearing the goods without payment of duty and those admitted documents were made basis to allege the clandestine removal of goods against the appellant and also statements recorded during the course of investigation of the appellants were relied upon by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order. Moreover, the existence of these documents have not been denied by M/s IFL and M/s IAPL and admitted that these goods (packing material) have been supplied to the appellants wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty relied on the statement recorded during the course of the investigation, as evidence to prove the facts, it has to be held that the adjudicating authority relied on the irrelevant facts, therefore, the statements are not admissible evidence in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. As the cross examination is required for proper adjudication, which was not granted to the appellant, therefore, I hold that there is violation of principle of natural justice. With these observations, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to grant cross examination of the witnesses sought by the appellant as per Section 9D of the Act, and, thereafter, the adjudicating authority shall pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
