Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 100 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine manufacture and removal - Ingots - weighment slips - Third party evidences - Cross-examination of statements of witnesses - the case of the revenue is based on the loose slips recovered during the course of investigation on 18.12.2007 in the premises of M/s V. K. - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- No discrepancy in statutory records/stocks in the premises of M/s waryam was found. On the basis of these loose slips recovered from M/s V. K., it has been alleged that weighment slips pertains to M/s Waryam on same investigation, some of the slips were found by the revenue pertains to M/s V. K. and the case of clandestine clearance of dutiable goods was made out against M/s V. K. and the said show cause notice was adjudicated, thereafter, the matter travelled up to this Tribunal. All the documents which have been relied upon by the revenue have been recovered from the premises of M/s V. K. the third party - The said documents cannot be relied in the absence of any corroborative evidence. Cross-examination of statements of witnesses - Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The two buyers were examined by the revenue with regard to the clandestine clearance of the goods, therefore, Shri Ajay Jain of M/s Ajar Amar Steel denied that they have not received any goods without invoices. Revenue has failed to appreciate the said statement of Shri Ajay Jain, but Shri Kamal Chopra has admitted that they have purchased a meagre quantity of 249.985 Mts of steel ingots, but the appellant sought cross examination of Shri Kamal Chopra, the same was denied - In terms of Section 9-D of Central Excise Act, 1944, the adjudicating authority is required to examine in chief of the witness of the statements have been relied and thereafter to make up his mind that the statement made by the witness is correct and thereafter to offer cross examination of the said witness to the appellants. The said procedure has not been followed, therefore, there is a gross violation of principal of natural justice. As the revenue has failed to come with tangible evidence to allege the clandestine manufacture and removal of goods, therefore, the impugned order is set aside and no demand of duty is sustainable - Consequently, no penalty is imposable on all the appellants. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|