TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 232
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f limitation against M/s Endico Power Tools India. The learned Pr. Commissioner has also ordered for recovery of interest on the demanded amount under Section 11AB of the Act and imposed equal penalty on M/s Endico Power Tools India (the Appellant No.1) under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; also imposed penalties of Rs.10,00,000/- each on Sh. Gurjeet Singh, Prop. of Tripod India (the Appellant No.2) and Sh. Jatinder Singh, Prop. of Zoramar Electric Tools (the Appellant No.3) under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that M/s Endico Power Tools India owned by Sh. Avtar Singh, M/s Zoramar Electric Tools proprietary firm of Sh. Jatinder Singh and M/s Tripod India proprietary firm of Sh. Gurjeet Singh, are small scale units and are engaged in assembling small/tiny sized power hand tools lime handheld drill machines, handheld marble/wood cutters, grinders, planners, routers etc. The plastic parts of various sizes and qualities such as covers, armatures, chucks etc are freely available in market. Assembling work is labour intensive and electricity is used only for lighting of premises and testi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity is in violation of principles of natural justice. In this regard, he relies on the following case-laws: * Jindal Drugs Pvt Ltd vs. UOI - 2016 (340) ELT 67 (P&H) * Him Logistics Pvt Ltd vs. Pr. Commr. of Cus. - 2016 (336) ELT 15 (Del.) * Elora Tobacco Co. Ltd vs. CCE, Indore - 2017 (347) ELT 614 (Tri. Del.) 4.2 The learned Counsel further submits that when the right of examination/cross-examination has been denied, thereafter, under the compelled circumstances, the Appellants filed affidavits also. 4.3 The learned Counsel further submits that the request of the Appellants for cross-examination is made at the time of personal hearing also and the same is recorded in the impugned order. But despite that, the request of the Appellants for cross-examination was rejected without any basis. 4.4 The learned Counsel further submits that in fact, the claim of the Appellants is that statements were typed by the Officers of the Central Excise on Computers in English without explaining the same to the Appellants in vernacular language; the same is admitted by the scribers of the statements, i.e. Inspectors of Central Excise, that they typed the statement....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o confirm the demand and impose penalty. For this, he relies on the following case-laws: * Precision Equipment Co. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-I - 2024 (04) LCX 0313 * PAP FLON Engineering Co. Pvt Ltd vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-I - 2024 (381) ELT 500 (Tri. Ahmd.) 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the department justifies the impugned order and submits that the Adjudicating Authority has considered all the statements made by the Appellants and has also relied upon the documents which were collected during the search; and after analysis of the entire evidences, the Adjudicating Authority has concluded that there was only control of Sh. Avtar Singh, Prop. of M/s Endico Power Tools India and there involved mutuality of interest in view of electricity payments of one firm paid by the other firm, and further, there were common infrastructure and staff, and the same is admitted by the Appellants. 5.1 The learned Authorized Representative further submits that the Adjudicating Authority has also observed that as per the details mentioned as on date on the website of M/s Endico Power Tools India, information with regard to one of the Director, i.e. Sh. Gu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....suitable reason for declining the request of the Appellants for cross-examination. It has been settled by various decisions of the Tribunal/Courts that when a case is made out on the basis of a statement of a witness then cross-examination of that witness has to be given to the party/assessee who is aggrieved by the said statement. 8. Further, we find that in this case, the statements of the persons were typed by the Officers of the department on Computer in English without explaining the same to the Appellants in vernacular language. Further, there are discrepancies in the relied upon statements which fully justified the examination/cross-examination of the witnesses. It has been consistently held by the Tribunal/Courts in various cases (cited supra) that denial of the cross-examination of the person whose statement is relied upon will seriously violate the principle of natural justice and the said statement cannot be relied upon against that person. 9. Since, in this case, the Appellants right to cross-examination has been seriously affected by not granting them the cross-examination, therefore, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside....