9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Appellant company, its Managing Director, one of its Directors and others were found to have been involved in central excise duty evasion. Pursuant to a search of the premises of the Appellant company, its Directors and others, on 26-9-2003, documentary evidence was recovered and statements of several persons were recorded leading to the tentative conclusion that the Appellant company was involved in the clandestine production and clearance of its final products i.e., CTD bars, and they had suppressed receipt of raw materials i.e., MS Ingots. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise passed an order on 16-9-2005 confirming the levy of Rs. 2,37,956/- under the proviso to Section 11-A(1) of the Central Excise Act (hereinafter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rasimham, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, would contend that the CESTAT had erred in law in taking into account, as evidence, the unproved written matter said to have been recovered from Sri Om Prakash Sharma, even though he was not presented for cross-examination; and, other than this statement, there was no supportive or corroborative evidence in support of the allegations levelled against the Appellant company. Learned Counsel would place reliance on Sunder Ispat Limited v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise - 2002 (141) E.L.T. 24 (A.P.H.C.D.B.); and Lakshman Exports Limited v. Collector of Central Excise - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 21 (S.C.). 5. On being shown the entries on the left side of page No. 201 of File No. 29, recovered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctory." 6. On being asked to give details of the documents ie., central excise invoices on which the re-rolled products mentioned in page No. 201 of File No. 29 were cleared, and to explain whether the entire quantity of ingots received as per the above page were accounted for or not, the Managing Director replied : "The accounted for quantities arc reflected in the Central Excise invoices issued on the day and the dated mentioned in page No. 201 and File No. 29 recovered from the factory. Similarly, the accounted for inputs i.e., ingots are reflected in the information shown in our raw material accounts." 7. It is in this context that the CESTAT, in its order dated 31-3-2010, held that, from the said statement of the Managing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble opportunity to the defence; and, where evidence given by a witness is proposed to be relied upon for the purposes of adjudication, principles of fair play would require that such witnesses be summoned for examination. In Lakshman Exports Limited - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 21 (S.C.), the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order on the ground that the assessee therein had not been permitted to cross examine the representatives of two concerns to establish that the goods in question had been accounted for in their books of accounts, and that the appropriate amount of Central Excise had been paid. 9. Cross-examination of a witness, on whose statement reliance is placed by the adjudicating authority, is no doubt a facet of the principles of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar ease. [Union of India v. P.K. Roy - AIR 1968 SC 850; Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. State of Mysore - AIR 1972 SC 32]. It is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to when the principles of natural justice are to apply, nor as to their scope and extent. There is no such thing as a merely technical infringement of natural justice. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the subject-matter to be dealt with, and so forth. [Wade's Administrative Law (5th Edn., pp. 472-75]. 10. To sustain the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice one must establish that prejudice has been caused by non-observance thereof, [Syndicate Bank v. Venkatesh Gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise, in demanding payment of excise duty by, and in levying penalty on, the appellant. The statement of Sri Om Prakash Sharma, who was an employee of the Appellant company, was accepted to be true by none other than the Managing Director of the Appellant company. It is evident, therefore, that no prejudice was caused to the appellant on their being denied the opportunity of cross-examining Sri Om Prakash Sharma when its Managing Director had himself accepted the said statement to be true. Even otherwise nothing prevented the Appellant company, if they so chose, from producing Sri Om Prakash Sharma, (who was their employee), as a witness in their defence and to examine him on their behalf. It is evident, therefore, that this plea of de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
