Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 denial of cross-examination of the material witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the Revenue vitiated the adjudication and warranted remand for fresh decision after following Section 9D procedure.
Analysis: The impugned demand and penalty were founded on third-party statements recorded during investigation. The Tribunal relied on the settled position that, where such statements are proposed to be used against the assessee, the person making the statement must ordinarily be examined in adjudication and the assessee must be afforded cross-examination, unless the statutory exceptions are attracted. It was noted that the mandatory procedure under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 governs the admissibility and use of such statements in adjudication proceedings, and that denial of cross-examination in these circumstances offends natural justice. The Tribunal followed the binding line of authority that such a defect goes to the root of the proceedings.
Conclusion: The denial of cross-examination vitiated the adjudication, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision after granting opportunity to cross-examine the material witnesses and following Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.