2016 (9) TMI 1174

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty. In December, 2002, the Officers of Central Excise conducted certain verifications of records in the premises of the appellant; thereafter certain investigations were conducted with various employees, transporters and also with reference to documents recovered and in conclusion proceedings were initiated against the appellants to recover Central Excise duty on goods alleged to have been cleared clandestinely; proposal to confiscate the seized goods as well as various penalties were also made. The original authority vide the impugned order confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 44,06,966/- towards goods cleared without payment of duty. Penalty of equal amount was also imposed on the main appellant. Apart from various other penalties, an amount ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd hence, the impugned order cannot be challenged on the ground of denial of cross examination. The main persons were employees of the appellant unit and the officers of the Department acted within their powers in recording statements. As such no principle of natural justice has been violated in the present case. The case against the appellants was clearly made out based on elaborate and substantial evidences. 4. Heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. 5. Before proceeding with the merit of the appeal it is necessary to examine the preliminary objection regarding due opportunity not being extended to the appellants to defend their case. As seen from the findings of the Original Authority (para 57.17) the charge against t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uld be incumbent on the Revenue to apply to Respondent No 2 to summon the makers of the said statements, so that the Revenue would examine them in chief before the adjudicating authority, i.e. before Respondent No 2. (ii) A copy of the said record of examination-in-chief, by the Revenue, of the makers of any of the statements on which the Revenue chooses to rely, would have to be made available to the assessee, i.e. to Ambika and Jay Ambey in this case. (iii) Statements recorded during investigation, under Section 14 of the Act, whose makers are not examined in chief before the adjudicating authority, i.e. before Respondent No 2, would have to be eschewed from evidence, and it would not be permissible for Respondent No 2 t....