TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., which are held by the GST Department to be connected to the Petitioner. Raids and searches were conducted in 2016, at the factory premises and residence of the Petitioner, and various goods were seized along with cash of Rs. 70,00,000/-. 5. The Petitioner was taken into custody on 18th September, 2016, and was thereafter released on bail. Following the same, a Show-Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner on 7th March, 2017, issued by Additional Directorate General, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Delhi (hereinafter, 'SCN dated 7th March,2017') as to why the period of limitation for issuing show-cause should not be extended by a further period of six months. Thereafter, a reply was submitted to the SCN dated 7th March, 2017, by the Petitioner on 10th March, 2017. 6. Further, another Show Cause Notice dated 14th September, 2017 (hereinafter, 'SCN dated 14th September, 2017') was issued to the Petitioner, whereby the Petitioner was asked to show cause as to why proceedings should not be initiated against the Petitioner, for the aforesaid seized cash. The Petitioner replied on 5th July, 2018, seeking to justify the cash which was seized. 7. Thereafter, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red premises in Dabri. 15. After searching the six premises simultaneously, DGGI had made a complete inventory of finished goods and raw materials. The said stock of finished goods and raw materials is set out below: "2.2 During search at the unregistered premises located at Plot No. 1/ A (105), A-Block, Dabri (East), New Delhi, eight vertical Pan Masala Pouch Packing Machines were found and seven of these were connected to power and loaded with laminates of various brands of Pan Masala and one machine was found in a dismantled condition. Following stock of finished goods and raw materials were also found at the said premises. i) 3,57,000 pouches of 'MDM' brand Pan Masala/Gutkha. ii) 2,25,000 pouches of 'RC' brand Pan Masala/Gutkha. iii) 59,400 pouches of 'SNG (Sanjog) Zarda' brand Pan Masala/Gutkha. iv) 26,760 pouches of 'SNG (Kesar ka Dum)' brand Pan Masala/Gutkha. v) 875 Kg laminates of 'SNG Export Quality'. vi) 450 Kg laminates of 'Hans Chap Tobacco'. vii) 450 Kg laminates of 'Safari 2000'. viii) 60 Kg 'Sanjog Zarda' brand Pan Masala/Gu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imanto 10 Lt 1800 18,000 17 Hazlenut 12 Lt 1900 22,800 18 T compound 15 Lt 1800 27,000 19 Kimam 15 Lt 80 1,200 20 Pacouli 12 Lt 2800 33,600 21 Glycerin 8 Kg 100 800 22 Musk 2 Lt 1800 3,600 23 Katha 3 30 90 Kg 250 22,500 24 Lime (Chuna) 2 45 90 Kg 25 2,250 25 Supari Dust 10 35 350 Kg 5 1,750 26 2 Roll pieces of Sanjog Pan Masala (Rs 4 each) 32 Kg 160 5,120 27 30 Roll Piece of Laxmi Zarda (Rs 1 each) 300 Kg 160 48,000 Total 6,26,980 16. A perusal of the impugned order shows that there were several individuals that were related and connected with each other, and were found to be involved in the manufacture and sale of the pan masala, in a clandestine manner. 17. According to the Petitioner, the Dabri premises are not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fending goods. This is irrefutable proof that clandestine manufacture of pan masala/ghutka was in progrees at the unregistered premises at Dabri, Delhi. These evidence strongly support the allegations levelled in the SCN that finished goods were manufactured in a clandestine manner. Statements of persons concerned with the said illegitimate production, employees, transporters, suppliers of raw material, purchasers of finished goods, all have in their respective statements admitted clandestine manufacture and clearance of the offending goods." 21. Thus, the only ground that is canvassed before this Court is that the non- providing of an opportunity for cross-examination violates the principles of natural justice. 22. This Court has had the occasion to consider this very issue in similar matters where the Court has observed that the right to cross-examination is not an unfettered right. The Court in 'M/s Vallabh Textiles v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax GST, Delhi East and Ors', 2025: DHC:2559-DB has observed the same as under: ""15. While cross-examination can be granted in certain proceedings, if it is deemed appropriate, the right to cross-examine cannot be an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....997 SCC (Cri) 272) to argue that cross- examination was unnecessary in certain circumstances such as the one at hand where all material facts were admitted by the appellants in their statements before the authority concerned. 25. There is, in our opinion, no merit even in that submission of the learned counsel. It is evident from Rule 3 of the Adjudication Rules framed under Section 79 of FERA that the rules of procedure do not apply to adjudication proceedings. That does not, however, mean that in a given situation, cross- examination may not be permitted to test the veracity of a deposition sought to be issued against a party against whom action is proposed to be taken. It is only when a deposition goes through the fire of cross- examination that a court or statutory authority may be able to determine and assess its probative value. Using a deposition that is not so tested, may therefore amount to using evidence, which the party concerned has had no opportunity to question. Such refusal may in turn amount to violation of the rule of a fair hearing and opportunity implicit in any adjudicatory process, affecting the right of the citizen. The question, however, is whether f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the evidence which has been seen from the impugned order, the Petitioner is making nothing but an attempt to completely wash its hands of the entire clandestine operation. 26. Moreover, the Petitioner has sought repeated adjournments which has been clearly recorded in the impugned order, in the following terms: "3.2 Statement dated 26.12.2019 of Shri Raj Kumar Gupta was vide his lawyer's letter dated 28.12.2019 informed to have been retracted. However, no vakalatnama was filed by the lawyer. On this fact being pointed out by the investigating agency, vide letter dated 10.01.2020, Shri Dhruv Surana, Advocate submitted vakalatnama, vide letter dated 14.01.2020. Following this Shri Raj Kumar Gupta was issued summons on 17.01.2020 to appear on 22.01.2020 for tendering statement. In response, Shri Dhruv Surana, vide his letter dated 21.01.2020, requested adjournment. Accordingly, summons was issued to Shri Raj Kumar Gupta 28.01.2020 and 06.02.2020, directing him to appearing for tendering statement 05.02.2020 and 10.02.2020. In response to summons dated 06.02.2020, Shri Dhruv Surana sought adjournment. As sufficient opportunities were given to Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, ....