2017 (11) TMI 646

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7,764.60/- as duty on a quantity of 4,19,418.00 Kg of tow having been cleared on invalid gate passes in form G.P.-1. It further appeared that the appellant have suppressed production of a quantity of 23464.8 KG of polyester fibre without accounting for the same in the statutory records without getting the classification list approved, without issuing gate passes and without payment of duty amounting to Rs. 84,15,521.12/- leviable thereon. As per inquiries conducted by revenue, it appeared that appellant consigned certain quantity of polyester fibre/tow initially to Shri Ram Silk Mills, Bombay, M/s Asha Wool Trading Company Panipat, Mahendra Jain, Panipat and M/s Synth Overseas Corporation, Bombay on G. P. as detailed in Annexure on various dates at a price ranging from Rs. 15 to Rs. 25 per Kg as per the details in the invoice of the appellant. Further, the aforesaid firms consigned the quantity of polyester fibre/tow. As stated above, Bharat Commerce and Industries Nagda without carrying out any process whatsoever and in respect of some consignments charged high price of Rs. 64 per Kg and in respect of others charged price ranging from Rs. 24 to Rs. 42.75 per Kg; that the delivery ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al of the principles of natural justice. While remanding the case, the Tribunal, however, upheld the finding of the Collector that the appellant herein will have no right to cross-examine the witnesses on whose statements the Collector had relied upon. 2. The point in issue in the present case was whether a commodity which is categorised as waste by the appellant can be regarded as good quality fibre by the department and excise duty levied thereon. In order to justify the levy of excise duty, the Collector had referred to and relied upon the statement of some persons who are alleged to have utilised the said waste for the purposes of spinning yarn. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant should be given an opportunity of cross-examining those witnesses in order to determine whether the waste in question could be categorised as fibre for the purposes of levy of excise duty. He does not wish to cross-examine any other witness on those other statements to which reference may have been made. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we consider that this contention is well-founded. When the Collector has to decide afresh, he should, if....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....thorities with the remarks "closed", "Receiver left", and "not known". Further in case of Mr. S.P. Kanoria, his employer M/s Raigarh Jute & Textile Mills Ltd. informed that he had left the firm 25 years back and his whereabouts were not known. Further the matter, being 32 years old, they did not have any record pertaining to the said person. Further, as the matter was very old and no other person conversant with the matter, they could not depute any other employee for the same. Since none of the witnesses were traceable, appellant vide letter dated 11/10/2010 was requested to provide the whereabouts of the witnesses, if known to them, so that they may be called for cross-examination. However, appellant also could not give any information about them. This office, which is quasi-judicial in nature, can only issue letters or summons under Section 14 of the Act and does not have the powers to issue bailable/non-bailable warrants for calling to the witnesses to appear for cross-examination. 6. It is further observed in para-5.5 of the order - the clearances of fibres in the guise of waste could not have been possible without the knowledge and consent of the purchasers who knew the ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner, appellant requested for cross-examination of 4 persons only, namely, S.K. Kabra of Bharat Commerce Industries, Nagda, Shri N.B. Patel of Sarangpur Cotton Manufacturing Company, Shri S.P. Kanodia of Bharat woollen Mills, Calcutta and B.L. Luthra of Natsyn Fibre Processor. Cross-examination of any other person was never requested by them, thereafter. I thus find that the statement of other persons are acceptable to them and therefore are admissible as evidence in the case. Learned Commissioner directed to give the name of the persons to be cross-examined so that the directions of this Tribunal and the Apex Court may be complied. The appellants vide their various letters had stated that as per the directions of the Apex Court cross-examination of all such witnesses is required, the statement of whom revenue wishes to rely, particularly in the reply dated 1/7/2008. Referring to the order of the Apex Court, it was mentioned that all such persons whose statement, the Department intends to rely upon should be produced for cross-examination. The learned counsel further states that the adjudicating authority has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested on him for producing ....