9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over Rs. 13.6 Crores on the ground that it had clandestinely manufactured and cleared POY, without payment of Central Excise duty, on the basis of evidences in the form of documents seized from the respondents/ verification report seized from the respondent's premises, documents from buyers and transporters as well as various statements recorded during the course of investigation. The matter was adjudicated and the demand against the respondent was confirmed and various penalties against the respondent and co-noticees were also imposed. Against the said order, the respondent approached to this Tribunal and this Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority with certain directions to be complied with in a time-frame manner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctions of this Tribunal could not be complied with and the order of this Tribunal has attained finality by the order of the Hon'ble High Court order dated 31.10.2008. In that circumstances, Revenue is not open to adjudicate the matter and therefore, the ld. Adjudicating authority has rightly dropped the proceedings against the respondent. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. The facts of the case not in dispute in the first round of litigation that this Tribunal, while remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority has observed as under:- "9. Appellant's request for cross-examination of witnesses is also required to be allowed inasmuch as the statements were recorded in their absence and Revenue is relying on thos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be appreciated." 6. In terms of order of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the order of this Tribunal, in the first round of litigation, is the final and as per the said order, cross-examination of witnesses is essential as these witnesses are of the Revenue's witnesses on whose statements have been relied upon while issuing the show cause notice. In terms of Section 9(D) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the admissibility of statements recorded during the course of investigation is required to be tested. In the light of the decisions in the case of Jindal Drugs Pvt. Limited vs. UOI - 2016 (340) E.L.T. 67 (P & H), Ambika International vs. UOI & Anr. - 2016-TIOL-1238-HC-P7H-CX and CCE, Delhi vs. Kuber Tobacco India Limited - 2016 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
