TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disagree with the adjudicating authority as provided under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, it is incumbent on the adjudicating authority to cross examine the persons whose statements were recorded by the investigating agency, only thereafter such statements can be used for adjudication of the SCN. Since admittedly the adjudicating authority has refused cross examination of 17 persons, there is clear violation of principles of natural justice - the appellant should be given opportunity for cross examination of witnesses. The matter remitted to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order after observing the principles of natural justice - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Excise Appeal No. 1154 of 2011, 1155 of 2011, 1156 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also proposed to be demanded under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the duty short paid / evaded. The SCN also proposes to impose personal penalty on Sh. Dinesh Raj Kumar Sharma, Sh. Santosh Kumar Sharma and all Director of M/s Mansa Cigarettes Pvt. Ltd under Rule 26(1) of Central Excise Rules 2002. The SCN also proposed confiscate of the goods seized from M/s Golden Tobacco Ltd and penalty under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The SCN also proposed to be impose personal penalty against various persons under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The adjudicating authority vide the impugned order confirmed the demand as under: Being aggrieved by the impugned order, M/s Mansa Cigaret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble, therefore, no cross examination is required. We completely disagree with the adjudicating authority as provided under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, it is incumbent on the adjudicating authority to cross examine the persons whose statements were recorded by the investigating agency, only thereafter such statements can be used for adjudication of the SCN. Since admittedly the adjudicating authority has refused cross examination of 17 persons, there is clear violation of principles of natural justice. We are of the view which is based on settled law that cross examination of witnesses is primary step to complete adjudication process. Therefore, in our view, the appellant should be given opportunity for cross examination of witness ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
