Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 379 - CESTAT AHMEDABADClandestine removal - alleged clearance of ‘automotive paints/coats’ under the brand name ‘SUNLAC’, manufactured by the appellant which was being sold under the invoices of M/s Spraylac - records of production for the period of dispute are not available and that the charges of clandestine clearance have been inferred from lateral evidence - cross-examination of witnesses - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The lack of any evidence pertaining to procurement of excessive raw material, or of shipment of finished goods, to the trading unit is not in dispute. It would appear that the statement of various individuals, that have been relied upon to substantiate the indirect evidence introduced in the form of submission to another statutory authority in a different context, viz., to secure of brand name, the discharge of liability of sales tax and the plea before the Settlement Commission by successor entity would necessarily have to be subject to the test of validity and reliability. It is seen from the records that the findings of the adjudicating authority, taking note of the circumstances of non-availability of records, appear to have placed excessive reliance on uncorroborated evidence. The confirmation of demand of duty rests, therefore, upon the shakiest of foundation. The adjudicating authority was required to consider the request for cross-examination of the witnesses - matter remanded back to the original authority to decide the matter afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|