TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 1985. On 26-03-2010 searches were conducted at various premises related to the appellant firm as well as residential premises of Shri A K Chaudhary, Proprietor of the appellant.. The visiting officers seized the stock of evaporative coolers found in the factory and godown premises. Documents believed to be incrimating were also seized. The Show Cause Notice dated 24-09-2010 was issued proposing to confiscate the seized goods. After completing the investigation of the case another show cause notice dated 17.10.2013 was issued proposing demand and recovery of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 2,24,41,250, on charges of clandestinely clearance. Both the SCN were disposed of by the impugned order in which the adjudicating authority conf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....will require installing of fans, motor pumps and electrification. However, the department did not agree to a re-verification but stood by the original panchnama dated 26-03-2010. The assessee declined the redemption of the seized goods which stand subsequently confiscated. They approached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and as per the direction the Hon'ble High Court, the departmental authorities conducted stock taking once again of the seized goods. As a result of the re-verification, it was found that most of the boxes were containing only bodies for air coolers and not complete coolers. It has been argued before us by the Learned Counsel, for the assessee that demand confirmed on the basis of such stock taking cannot be used for demand of d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mination of various persons whose statements have been used by the Revenue have not been permitted by the adjudicating authority. The request for examination of defence witness also stand denied. 8. Shri Bharat Bhushan Ld. Counsel, representing Shri Amit Choudhary argued that the adjudicating authority has absolved his client of being dummy of M/s Amco Sales. However he has imposed penalty on him for abetting the evasion. He argued that the penalty cannot be sustained since not such proposal was mooted in the relevant show cause notice. 9. Ld DR justified the impugned order. He submitted that the charge of clandestine clearance may be upheld on the basis of documents recovered in the investigation. 10. We heard both sides and perused the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve duplicate entries i.e., some of the clearances have been counted more than once on the basis of the evidence. On going through the impugned order we find that in many such instances the adjudicating authority has already granted relief for duplicate entries. But the assessee's argument is that many more such instances are yet to be given benefit. 14. After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence in this case and also the grounds advanced by the appellant, we are of the view that the impugned order as it stands cannot be upheld. The fact that cross-examination of witnesses sought by the appellant has been denied is a serious breach of the Principles of Natural Justice. The Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 lays down th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., other than a proceeding before a Court, as they apply in relation to a proceeding before a Court." 15. A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 9D of the Act makes it clear that clauses (a) and (b) of the said sub-section set out the circumstances in which a statement, made and signed by a person before the Central Excise Officer of a gazetted rank, during the course of inquiry or proceeding under the Act, shall be relevant, for the purpose of proving the truth of the facts contained therein. 16. Section 9D of the Act came in from detailed consideration and examined, by the Delhi High Court, in J.K. Cigarettes Ltd. vs. CCE, 2009 (242) ELT 189 (Del)= 2009-TIOL-478-HC-DEL-CX. Para 12 of the said decision clearly hold that by virt....