2009 (9) TMI 601 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal Upholds Commissioner's Decision Dismissing Appeal in Goods Clearance Case

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to dismiss the appeal in a case involving allegations of goods ... Yarn is supplied in cones while bills show the yarn sale in PRH - for doubling was received in cone and sold in cone after doubling; that in doubling, yarn in PRH. cannot be used - Yarn Trader was their trading firm, had traded yarn from the firm on commission basis - man of ordinary prudence and diligence can appreciate how the industry better works with yarn in cone only – Held that: - material evidence is on record we are unable to appreciate that activity of the appellant was as claimed by him but remained questionable - buyers require goods in cone only for the advantage of manufacture and economic operation - appellant has no scope to succeed in its appeal in view of evidence on record going against it. Issues:Allegation of goods clearance method, denial of opportunity for cross-examination, reliance on oral evidence, credibility of statements, trade practices, evidence evaluation, appeal dismissal.Allegation of goods clearance method:The appellant was accused of clearing goods in a manner to gain undue benefits from a notification. The appellant denied the allegations, stating goods were cleared based on customer requirements. The Revenue relied on oral evidence to claim goods were cleared in a specific form, but the appellant requested to cross-examine the witnesses, which was denied. The Tribunal considered the appellant's explanation and previous decisions to assess the validity of the allegations.Denial of opportunity for cross-examination:The appellant sought to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were used against them, but this request was not granted. The appellant argued that without the opportunity to cross-examine, the reliance on such statements was unjustified. The Tribunal evaluated the impact of this denial on the case.Reliance on oral evidence and credibility of statements:The Revenue relied on oral evidence to support the claim that goods were cleared in a specific form. The Tribunal examined the credibility of these statements and the absence of any mala fide intentions. The Tribunal assessed the reliability of the recorded statements and their impact on the case.Trade practices and evidence evaluation:The oral evidence presented by witnesses highlighted trade practices where goods were bought and sold in a particular form. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence presented, including statements from witnesses, to determine the validity of the allegations against the appellant. The Tribunal considered the industry practices and the necessity of goods being in a specific form for buyers.Appeal dismissal:After considering all arguments and evidence, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to dismiss the appeal. The Tribunal found the evidence on record, including oral statements and trade practices, supported the conclusion that the appellant's activities were as alleged. The dismissal of the appeal was based on the evidence presented and the lack of grounds for the appellant to succeed.This detailed analysis covers the various issues involved in the legal judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI.