TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the petitioners. 2. On asking of the Court Mr. V.K. Kaushal, Advocate took notice for the respondents. 3. The petitioners have filed the Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent no.2 before whom Show Cause Notice No. C.No.V(33)84/HQ/Adj/CE/J K/JDL/12/1275 dated 5.11.2012 is presently pending adjudication to follow the mandate of Section 9D(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) while adjudicating the said Show Cause Notice. 4. The petitioners have approached the Court even at the stage of adjudication only because 2nd respondent has in fact adjudicated similar Show Cause Notices involving identical allegations and relying on substantially similar evidence in flagrant violation of Section 9D by relying upon statements without admitting them in evidence by following the prescribed procedure contained therein. 5. The petitioners units are located in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. By virtue of the Notification 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 the manufacturing unit of the Writ Petitioners are exempted from payment of duty under the Act. Under the said Notification units entitled to exemption thereunder are requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interests of justice. (2) The provision of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to any proceeding under this Act, other than a proceeding before a Court, as they apply in relation to a proceeding before a Court. 9. A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 9D of the Act makes it clear that clauses (a) and (b) of the said sub-section set out the circumstances in which a statement, made and signed by a person before the Central Excise Officer of a gazetted rank, during the course of inquiry or proceeding under the Act, shall be relevant,for the purpose of proving the truth of the facts contained therein. 10. Section 9D of the Act came in from detailed consideration and examination, by the Delhi High Court, in J.K. Cigarettes Ltd. vs. CCE, 2009 (242) ELT 189 (Del). Para 12 of the said decision clearly holds that by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 9D, the provisions of sub-section (1) thereof would extend to adjudication proceedings as well. There can, therefore, be no doubt about the legal position that the procedure prescribed in sub-se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise of such discretion, i.e. the order which would be passed, by the adjudicating authority under Section 9D, if he chooses to invoke clause (a) of sub-section (1) thereof, would be pregnable to challenge. While the judgment of the Delhi High Court in J K Cigarettes Ltd. (supra) holds that the said challenge could be ventilated in appeal, the petitioners have also invited attention to an unreported short order of the Supreme Court in UOI and another vs. GTC India and others in SLP ( C) No. 2183/1994 dated 03/01/1995 wherein it was held that the order passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 9D of the Act could be challenged in writ proceedings as well. Therefore, it is clear that the adjudicating authority cannot invoke Section 9D(1)(a) of the Act without passing a reasoned and speaking order in that regard, which is amenable to challenge by the assessee, if aggrieved thereby. 16. If none of the circumstances contemplated by clause (a) of Section 9D (1) exists, clause (b) of Section 9D (1) comes into operation. The said clause prescribes a specific procedure to be followed before the statement can be admitted in evidence. Under this procedure, two steps are required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the gazetted Central Excise officer, unless and until he can legitimately invoke clause (a) of Section 9D(1). In all other cases, if he wants to rely on the said statement as relevant, for proving the truth of the contents thereof, he has to first admit the statement in evidence in accordance with clause (b) of Section 9D(1). For this, he has to summon the person who had made the statement, examine him as witness before him in the adjudicating proceeding, and arrive at an opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in the interests of justice. 20. In fact, Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, clearly sets out the sequence of evidence, in which evidence-in-chief has to precede cross-examination, and cross-examination has to precede re-examination. 21. It is only, therefore, (i) after the person whose statement has already been recorded before a gazetted Central Excise officer is examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority, and (ii) the adjudicating authority arrives at a conclusion, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the statement deserves to be admitted in evidence, that the question of o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for Respondent No 2 to rely on the said evidence while adjudicating the matter. Neither, needless to say, would be open to the Revenue to rely on the said statements to support the case sought to be made out in the Show Cause Notice. (iv) Once examination-in-chief, of the makers of the statements, on whom the Revenue seeks to rely in adjudication proceedings, takes place, and a copy thereof is made available to the assessee, it would be open to the assessee to seek permission to cross-examine the persons who have made the said statements, should it choose to do so. In case any such request is made by the assessee, it would be incumbent on the adjudicating authority, i.e. on Respondent No2 to allow the said request, as it is trite and well-settled position in law that statements recorded behind the back of an assessee cannot be relied upon, in adjudication proceedings, without allowing the assessee an opportunity to test the said evidence by cross-examining the makers of the said statements. If at all authority is required for this proposition, reference may be made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arya Abhushan Bhandar v U.O.I., 2002(143)ELT 25 (SC), Swades ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
