Tribunal Overturns Order, Cites Violation of Cross-Examination Rights in Excise Duty Case; Appeals Remanded for Review.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned Order-In-Original, which confirmed Excise Duty, penalty, interest, and personal penalty for clandestine removal of goods. It ruled that the refusal to allow cross-examination of witnesses violated Section 9D of the Central Excise Act. The appeals were allowed by way of remand for a fresh order, ensuring cross-examination and further submissions.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against Order-In-Original confirming Excise Duty, penalty, interest, and personal penalty for clandestine removal of goods.

Summary:
The appeals were directed against an Order-In-Original confirming Excise Duty, penalty, interest, and personal penalty on the charge of clandestine removal of goods. The appellant argued that the case was based on a computer printout and statements of various persons, but the provisions of Section 36B of the Central Excise Act regarding the computer printout were not followed. The appellant also requested cross-examination of witnesses, which was rejected. The Adjudicating authority's refusal to allow cross-examination was challenged, citing relevant case laws. The Assistant Commissioner for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. The Tribunal noted that cross-examination is mandatory under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act and that it is necessary for a fair trial. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed by way of remand for a fresh order after allowing cross-examination of witnesses and considering further submissions by the appellant. The decision was pronounced in open court on 05.04.2024.

---