Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2017 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 1424 - HC - Central ExciseClandestine removal - reliability on statements - cross-examination not provided - Whether statements drawn by Central Excise Officers under Section 14, duly proved and corroborated by other evidences, are sufficient evidence to rely and impose penalty without being subjected to cross-examination? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is not a case of admission on the part of assessee himself or his authorized representative but statements relied herein are that of proprietors of transport companies and others. It would be travesty of justice to hold that ex parte statements recorded of other persons than assessee or its representatives can be relied as a sufficient evidence to pass an order adverse to assessee without allowing such persons to be cross-examined by assessee and that too despite demand. Interpretation of statute - Whether provisions of Section 9D of Act, 1944 which is specifically meant for prosecution, is in any way contradictory to Section 14 of Act, 1944? - HELD THAT:- Section 9D only renders statement made and signed by any person before any Central Excise Officer of a Gazetted Rank, relevant, for the purpose of proving anything in any prosecution for an offence, truth of facts which it contains but it does not declare such statement to be a conclusive evidence so as to base findings in regard to fiscal liability only on that statement. Making a document relevant for the purpose of proving truth of facts which it contains is one thing and holding such statement as conclusive evidence to prove a fact is another thing. Revenue in the case in hand has tried to use and rely aforesaid statements of third parties, without permitting cross-examination by assessee, as a conclusive evidence to prove facts stated therein. It means that Revenue want to utilize an ex parte version to pass an adverse order against a person without giving such person an opportunity to cross-examine the persons who have made such statements so as to have an opportunity to show that those statements are not true or there is some inaccuracy or otherwise irregularity etc. Such an attempt on the part of Revenue is not only illegal but also in the teeth of principles of natural justice and beyond the scope of Sections 14 and 9D of Act, 1944. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-Revenue.
|