Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1497 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - Chewing Tobacco - Section 9D of the Central Excise Act - Held that:- In the present case, mandate of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act has not been followed by the learned Commissioner - The Hón’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Jindal Drugs vs. Union of India [2016 (6) TMI 956 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] has held that if the provisions of Section 9D is not followed, then the statement recorded under Section 14, cannot be relied upon In the present case, the learned Commissioner has not followed the mandate of section 9D, which requires the witness to be examined in Adjudication proceedings, which includes cross –examination, therefore, the statements recorded under Section 14 have to be eschewed from evidence. Also, the department is relying upon the records recovered from the premises of M/s. Rudraksha Marketing, Delhi. However, it is found that appellants were having a family dispute with them, which is evident from the pleadings and various documents annexed with the appeal. Therefore, the recovered documents (from Rudraksha) cannot be relied upon in isolation. In the present case, there is no credible evidence which shows that the appellant is involved in clandestine removal of goods - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|