Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1685 - CESTAT CHENNAIClandestine removal - reliability of statements - cross-examination of persons - primary contention of the assessee is the denial of cross-examination of the dealers whose statements were made use by the Revenue in order to fasten the duty liability - Section 36 B of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT:- It is not the cases of the Revenue that the appellant’s electricity consumption was not disclosed or that the excess consumption of electricity was discovered by the State Electricity Board for which the appellant was fastened with penalty, etc. Moreover, apart from merely alleging that the excess usage of electricity had resulted in more production which was not recorded, the Revenue has not led any positive evidence to prove that the appellant did receive or found with cash which was also not recorded. There is also an allegation with regard to purchase of excess raw materials but, however, there is no positive evidence placed on record as to the excess/un-recorded cash found to have been used for the purchase of alleged excess raw materials nor is there any evidence or even reference to entry of vehicles/trucks into the factory premises for loading of goods thereon, security gate records, statement of lorry drivers, etc., and therefore, the other evidences are also of no weightage to conclusively hold that there is clandestine activities. It is the settled position therefore that a statement which is sought to be used against a person shall be given to the person against whom it is being used, that person should also be provided with an opportunity of cross-examining such other person which is also the requirement of law as well as natural justice. Even though, the cross-examination was sought for, the Revenue not only denied and rejected the appellant’s request, but also made use of such un-corroborated statements to demand duty on the allegations of clandestine removal which is not permissible. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|