Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 767 - AT - Central ExciseLevy of penalty u/r 26 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - case of the department is that the Urea was diverted and used for industrial purpose - demand of differential duty in the chain from manufacture up to the consumer - cross-examination done properly or not - HELD THAT:- The crossexamination of the witnesses was not carried out properly. The Hon’ble High Court in two identical cases of GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD [2020 (1) TMI 1204 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and VIJAY CHANDRAKANT MULCHANDANI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & 2 [2017 (11) TMI 2011 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], considering the fact that no cross-examination was allowed but the same is necessary for passing a reasoned order by the adjudicating authority, directed the adjudicating authority to conduct the cross examination. This Tribunal in also one set of cases on identical issue in the case of Dhanlaxmi Pigments Pvt. Ltd and others vide Final Order No. A/11258-11368/2019 dated 08.07.2019 [2019 (9) TMI 1163 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. Thus, all these appeals should also be remanded to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order, after conducting the cross-examination of the witnesses - appeals are disposed of by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order after complying the provision to Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944.
|