Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the impugned order could be sustained when the statements relied upon by the Department had not been examined in accordance with the procedure prescribed for admitting such statements in evidence.
Analysis: The order was founded substantially on statements recorded by Central Excise officers to establish clandestine manufacture and removal. The statutory scheme requires that such statements, if relied upon for the truth of their contents, must satisfy the conditions in Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Unless the declarant falls within the specified exceptional circumstances, the statement cannot be straightaway used as evidence; the declarant must be examined as a witness and the authority must then decide, by a reasoned order, whether the statement should be admitted in evidence. Only thereafter can the question of cross-examination arise. Since both sides accepted that this procedure had not been followed, the matter required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority after complying with Section 9D and the principles of natural justice.
Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh adjudication after following the mandatory procedure under Section 9D and granting due opportunity for cross-examination where applicable.