TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... based on fraudulent invoices issued by M/s Modi Alloys and M/s Deep Steel Industries. On these allegations, the Department issued show cause notice dated 12.11.2019 invoking extended period of limitation under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11(A)(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for disallowing and recovering of CENVAT credit of Rs. 9,29,607/-. The Appellant filed a detailed reply requesting for cross examination and supply of adverse material against the appellant but the Department did not provide the opportunity of cross-examination and confirmed the demand vide order dated 03.10.2022 along with interest and equal penalty. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner on the ground that the appellant has not been supplied the adverse material or cross-examination but without dealing with the submissions of the appellant, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 31.08.2023. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ELT 67 (P&H) has categorically held in Para 19 that it is mandatory to allow the cross-examination of the material witnesses whose statements are relied upon against the assessee. Learned Counsel further submits that this Tribunal by following the ratio of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra) has observed in the case of M/s Lauls Ltd. Vs CCE (Final Order No.60192-60194/2023 dated 19.07.2023) as under: 8. We find that the appellants have made a request to the Adjudicating Authority to give an opportunity to cross-examine particularly, Shri Ram Bilas Bansal, Shri Abhay Gupta and Shri D.K. Gupta, the witnesses. However, the Adjudicating Authority has not accepted the request. Adjudicating Authority finds that: M/s Lauls Ltd, Faridabad (Noticee No. 1) in their reply dated 30.9.2009 had asked for cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements had been relied upon in the show cause notice, but thereafter they did not stress for cross-examination of said witnesses. Even during the personal hearing held on 23.11.2009 before the then Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV, Faridabad, no such request for cross-exami....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a witness in the case before the Court and the Court is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interests of justice. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to any proceeding under this Act, other than a proceeding before a Court, as they apply in relation to a proceeding before a Court." 10. We find that Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court observed in the case of Jindal Drugs Pvt. Limited (supra) held that : "15. Once discretion, to be judicially exercised is, thus conferred, by Section 9D, on the adjudicating authority, it is self-evident inference that the decision flowing from the exercise of such discretion, i.e., the order which would be passed, by the adjudicating authority under Section 9D, if he chooses to invoke clause (a) of sub-section (1) thereof, would be pregnable to challenge. While the judgment of the Delhi High Court in J&K Cigarettes Ltd. (supra) holds that the said challenge could be ventilated in appeal, the petitioners have also invited attention to an unreported short order of the Supreme Court in UOI and Another v.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty, as, in such an atmosphere, there would be no occasion for any trepidation on the part of the witness concerned. 19. Clearly, therefore, the stage of relevance, in adjudication proceedings, of the statement, recorded before a Gazetted Central Excise Officer during inquiry or investigation, would arise only after the statement is admitted in evidence in accordance with the procedure prescribed in clause (b) of Section 9D(1). The rigour of this procedure is exempted only in a case in which one or more of the handicaps referred to in clause (a) of Section 9D(1) of the Act would apply. In view of this express stipulation in the Act, it is not open to any adjudicating authority to straightaway rely on the statement recorded during investigation/inquiry before the Gazetted Central Excise Officer, unless and until he can legitimately invoke clause (a) of Section 9D(1). In all other cases, if he wants to rely on the said statement as relevant, for proving the truth of the contents thereof, he has to first admit the statement in evidence in accordance with clause (b) of Section 9D(1). For this, he has to summon the person who had made the statement, examine him as witne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-factory prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guess work as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them. 7. As mentioned above, the appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2216 of 2000, order dated 17-3-2005 [2005 (187) E.L.T. A33 (S.C.)] was passed remitting the case back to the Tribunal with the directions to d....