Tribunal emphasizes fair hearing, overturns decision based on questionable affidavit, stresses evidence examination.

The Tribunal remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration, emphasizing the importance of proper verification and a fair hearing for the respondent. The decision to set aside the demand and penalties based on an affidavit filed by an employee was overturned due to questions regarding the affidavit's authenticity, particularly as the Manager and Managing Director had previously admitted to clandestine clearance of excisable goods. The Tribunal highlighted the need for a thorough examination of evidence before reaching a decision.

---

---

Issues:
1. Alleged clandestine clearance of excisable goods without payment of duty.
2. Reliance on affidavit filed by an employee.
3. Authenticity of the affidavit.
4. Commissioner's decision to set aside the demand and penalties.

Analysis:
1. The case involved allegations of clandestine clearance of excisable goods by the respondents without payment of duty. The Revenue issued a show-cause notice based on documents recovered from the premises, demanding duty and proposing penalties on the firm and the Director. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand citing private records showing clandestine clearance and statements of the Manager and Managing Director admitting to manufacturing excisable goods without maintaining statutory records.

2. The respondent filed an appeal against the adjudication order, and the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand and penalties. This decision was based on an affidavit filed by an employee, Shri R.K. Trivedi, stating that the private records did not relate to the excisable goods. However, the Revenue contested the authenticity of this affidavit, claiming that Shri Trivedi denied filing any such affidavit when enquired.

3. The Revenue argued that the affidavit was submitted years after the visit to the premises, and the Commissioner (Appeals) did not verify its authenticity. Given that the Manager and Managing Director had admitted to clandestine clearance in their statements, the reliance on the affidavit without proper verification was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's decision and remanded the matter for reconsideration after providing an opportunity for the respondent to be heard.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals by remanding the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for proper verification and a fair hearing for the respondent in light of the conflicting claims regarding the affidavit's authenticity.

---