TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1579
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was setup jointly by Mr. C.K. Gupta, former Director of M/s MRTPL with Mr. A.K. Gupta in the year 1988, the Central Excise Registration for their factory located at Samaypur Badli, Delhi, for manufacturing of Gutkha. It is claimed that manufacturing of Gutkha was stopped for domestic market for want of demand in February, 2008 and the machines were accordingly sealed by the department. However, to continue with the export activities, M/s MRTPL sought permission to open the seal and operate the said machines. 5. In the appeal, it is alleged by the appellant that his father Mr. Chander Kumar Gupta had serious health ailments such as brainstroke, left side being paralyzed, appellant having lost his mother i.e. wife of Mr. Chander Kumar Gupta on 1st August, 2009, same led Mr. Chander Kumar Gupta to be bed-ridden as he also suffered from oral cancer. 6. During visit of officers of Central Excise Department on 11th October, 2009 at Plot no. 112, Khasra no. 301, Gali no. 6, Master Mohalla, Libaspur, Delhi, it was noticed that manufacturing of Gutkha was carried out with the help of two pouch packaging/filling machines and two sealing heater plates. The officers of the respondent-Cen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... c. Whether the Authorities below have failed to consider the liability of Mr. Habibullah who was the Director of M/s MRTPL post resignation of Mr. Chander Kumar Gupta and who has voluntarily paid the tax dues. 13. So as to substantiate the aforesaid questions of law, learned counsel for the appellant has invited attention of this Court to the death of Mr. Chander Kumar Gupta, the then Director, who was seriously ailing and expired post the raid in question i.e. on 11th October, 2009. According to him, the reply to the Show Cause Notice, in categorical terms, demanded certain documents which were not supplied to him, which amounts to denial of opportunity of hearing and as such, according to him, in absence thereof, the appellant was handicapped in submitting his detailed submission. He would claim that the reply filed by him, so also, the demise of his father was not at all appreciated before passing the order-in-original as well as by the CESTAT. According to him, the Show Cause Notice, the order-in-original so also, the order passed by the CESTAT are wholly based on the statement of witnesses and the said statements were never supplied to him and such witnesses whose stateme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... examination cannot be denied since there are exceptional reasons or circumstances. 17. That being so, it is urged that both the orders impugned are liable to be quashed and set-aside. 18. As against above, Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported both the orders viz. order-in-original, so also, the order passed by the CESTAT. According to him, even if in the Show Cause Notice a reference is made to the statement of the witnesses, it is not only that statement of such witnesses are only relied on for passing of the orders impugned. According to him, such statements are further corroborated by independent evidence as could be referred from the orders impugned including the Show Cause Notice. He would further claim that all the witnesses whose statements were recorded are admissible in evidence and same are since corroborated by the other piece of evidence, the exceptional circumstances exist qua the denial of opportunity of cross examination. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent would urge that the appellant is trying to take advantage of death of his mother, death of his father post the proceedings initiated so as to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Yadav on the very same day i.e. on 11th October, 2009, Mr. Vinay, Mr. Gunjan, Mr. Chander Kumar Gupta, Mr. Shrawan Tiwari, Mr. Raisuddin, Mr. Ram Babu Yadav, Mr. Sharad Kumar and Mr. Habibullah under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, are part of judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 26. Apart from above, the Panchnama were drawn on 11th October, 2009 at D-21 Model Town-II, Delhi and A-6/22, Sector 16, Rohini, Khasra no. 753 Sirsapur near Hanuman Mandir, Delhi. 27. The stock of the finished goods of Gutkha/material/packaging material is drawn as Annexure A to the Panchnama, a video recording of the proceedings also took place at the premises and two machines which were engaged in the manufacturing and packaging were seized. The statement of Mr. Jitendra Yadav speaks of that his relative Shri. Naresh Kumar being the owner of the property at Libaspur, Delhi has given the same on rent to one Mr. Sharad and rent was being collected by him. He disclosed about the Gutkha packaging work to be in operation. The statements of workers namely Vinay and Gunjan specifically establish the said fact. A pen drive was s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n thousand six hundred twenty five), Addl. Duty of Excise leviable under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 2005 amounting to-Rs. 51,87,625/- (Fifty one lacs eighty seven thousand six hundred twenty five), National Calamity Contingent Duty leviable under Section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001 amounting to Rs. 86,42,125/- (Eighty six lacs forty two thousand one hundred twenty five), Education Cess leviable under Section 91 of the Finance Act, 2004 amounting to Rs. 11,39,750/- (Rs. Eleven lacs thirty nine thousand seven hundred fifty only) & Secondary & Higher Education Cess leviable under Section 136 of the Finance Act, 2007 amounting to Rs. 5,69,875/- totaling- Rs. 5,87,50,000/-)] and order recovery of the same from M/s M. R. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. B-14, Gali .No. 7, Samaypur Badli, New Delhi under proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section llA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 9 of the provisions of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008. ii. I order recovery of interest at applicable rates on the duty not paid and to be recovered from M/s M. R. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd., B-14, GaIi no. 7, Samaypur Badli, Delhi as above under Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccount by the Authority while passing the order-in-original. The seizure of packaging material and the ready mixture gutkha valued Rs. 7,99,380/-, total value of other material being Rs. 26,82,654/-, the independent stand of the appellant to the Show Cause Notice, the stand of the appellant that appellant and his father Mr. Chander Kumar Gupta were in the manufacture of Pan Masala, seizure of packaging machines, voluntarily payment of tax by employee of the appellant, had led to the only inference that manufacturing operation was being carried out without registration. Consumption of energy as certified by NDPL in view of illegal operation of machines by M/s MRTPL from 14th August 2008 demonstrate that the appellant was in the business of manufacturing of excisable goods without obtaining Central Excise registration. 34. On the issue of cross examination and the statutory right of the appellant, it has been specifically observed that the statements of the workers/employees, and co-noticee were recorded which are having monetary interest in operation of illegal business and as such, are not expected to support the case of the respondent. It was not that the denial of cross examin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he material on record, in our opinion, there has been no such breach. In the show cause notice issued on August 21, 1961, all the material on which the Customs Authorities have relied was set out and it was then for the appellant to give a suitable explanation. The complaint of the appellant now is that all the persons from whom enquiries were alleged to have been made by the authorities should have been produced to enable it to cross-examine them. In our opinion, the principles of natural justice do not require that in matters like this the persons who have given information should be examined in the presence of the appellant or should be allowed to be cross-examined by them on the statements made before the Customs Authorities. Accordingly, we hold that there is no force in the third contention of the appellant." 42. In Surjeet Singh Chhabra Vs. Union of India [1997 (89) E.L.T. 646 (SC)], the Apex Court observed as under:- "3. It is true that the petitioner had confessed that he purchased the gold and had brought it. He admitted that he purchased the gold and converted it as a kara. In this situation, bringing the gold without permission of the authority is in contrav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a straitjacket formula. Its application will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is also well settled that if a party after having proper notice chose not to appear, he at a later stage cannot be permitted to say that he had not been given a fair opportunity of hearing. The question had been considered by a Bench of this Court in Sohan Lal Gupta v. Asha Devi Gupta [(2003) 7 SCC 492] of which two of us (V.N. Khare, C.J. and Sinha, J.) are parties wherein upon noticing a large number of decisions it was held : (SCC p. 506, para 29) '29. The principles of natural justice, it is trite, cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. In a given case the party should not only be required to show that he did not have a proper notice resulting in violation of principles of natural justice but also to show that he was seriously prejudiced thereby.' 25. The principles of natural justice, it is well settled, must not be stretched too far." (See also Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [(2004) 4 SCC 311 : (2004) 4 Scale 338] and Canara Bank v. Debasis Das [(2003) 4 SCC 557 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 507].) 50. In Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel [(19....