2020 (12) TMI 883 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of order passed by Appellate Tribunal - Violation of principles of natural justice - invocation of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 - invocation of provision of Section 112(a) and Section 112(b) of the Customs Act 1962 simultaneously - cross-examination of the Panchas and other witnesses whose evidences are the bone of the entire findings of the Appellate Tribunal not allowed. HELD THAT - Issue Notice to the respondent returnable on 19th January 2021.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appellate Tribunal's order on penalties without findings and reasoning.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice by the Appellate Tribunal.
3. Invocation of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 by the Appellate Tribunal.
4. Simultaneous invocation of Section 112(a) and Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Confirmation of penalty without specifying violated subclauses.
6. Denial of cross-examination of witnesses by the Appellate Tribunal.
7. Violation of the principle of natural justice by denying cross-examination.
8. Ignoring directions to refer the matter to the Development Commissioner.

Analysis:

1. The appellant raised concerns regarding the Appellate Tribunal's order on penalties without providing any findings or reasoning. The substantial question of law revolves around whether the Tribunal was justified in passing such an order. The appellant questions the legality and fairness of the decision-making process in this regard.

2. Another issue highlighted is the alleged violation of principles of natural justice by the Appellate Tribunal. The appellant argues that the points presented were disregarded without proper findings, raising doubts about the fairness and adherence to procedural justice in the Tribunal's proceedings.

3. The invocation of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 by the Appellate Tribunal is also contested. The question arises as to whether the Tribunal had the legal basis and justification to apply this rule in the given circumstances, prompting a closer examination of the legal provisions and their applicability.

4. The simultaneous invocation of Section 112(a) and Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Appellate Tribunal is a significant issue. The appellant questions the Tribunal's decision to invoke both provisions concurrently, raising concerns about the interpretation and application of these legal provisions in the case.

5. Furthermore, the confirmation of penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 without specifying the violated subclauses is challenged. The lack of specificity in identifying the exact provisions breached adds complexity to the legal analysis and raises questions about procedural fairness.

6. The denial of cross-examination of witnesses by the Appellate Tribunal is a crucial issue. The appellant contests this decision, arguing that the ability to cross-examine witnesses is essential for a fair trial and proper presentation of evidence, thus questioning the Tribunal's adherence to procedural norms.

7. The denial of cross-examination is further scrutinized for its potential violation of the principle of natural justice. The appellant challenges the fairness of the Tribunal's actions in this regard, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and the right to cross-examine witnesses in legal proceedings.

8. Lastly, the issue of ignoring directions to refer the matter to the Development Commissioner is raised. The appellant questions the Tribunal's decision to disregard previous directives and accept explanations provided, highlighting potential inconsistencies in the application of legal directions and decisions.