Demand of duty of excise - Relevancy of statements under certain circumstances u/s 9D of CEA, 1944 - Wrong availment of Area Bases Exemption at Jammu - Concededly, all the 4 petitioners, claimed, and were granted, the benefit of Notification 56/2002-CE - investigations were stated to have revealed that they were not engaged in the manufacture of finished products at all.
Held that:- the case of the petitioners is essentially premised on Section 9D of The Central Excise Act, 1944 - the procedure prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 9D is required to be scrupulously followed, as much in adjudication proceedings as in criminal proceedings relating to prosecution.
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.
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.
There is no justification for jettisoning this procedure, statutorily prescribed by plenary parliamentary legislation for admitting, into evidence, a statement recorded before the gazetted Central Excise officer, which does not suffer from the handicaps contemplated by clause (a) of Section 9D(1) of the Act. The use of the word “shall” in Section 9D (1), makes it clear that, the provisions contemplated in the sub-Section are mandatory. Indeed, as they pertain to conferment of admissibility to oral evidence they would, even otherwise, have to be recorded as mandatory.
It is clear, from a reading of the Orders-in-original dated 19.05.2016 and 01.06.2016 supra, that Respondents No.2 has, in the said Orders-in-Original, placed extensive reliance on the statements, recorded during investigation under Section 14 of the Act. He has not invoked clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 9D of the Act, by holding that attendance of the makers of the said statements could not be obtained for any of the reasons contemplated by the said clause. That being so, it was not open to Respondent No.2 to rely on the said statements, without following the mandatory procedure contemplated by clause (b) of the said sub-section. The Orders-in-Original, dated 19/05/2016 and 01/06/2016, having been passed in blatant violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed by Section 9D of the Act, it has to be held that said Orders-in-Original stand vitiated thereby. - Demand set aside - Decided in favor of petitioner.
