COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. GUJARAT CYPROMET LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE tax appeals arise out of the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") dated September 4, 2009 See Gujarat Cypromet Ltd. v. CCE : [2013] 22 GSTR 349 (Trib. -Ahd). The short issue pertains to the question whether the respective respondent in each tax appeal was entitled to cross -examine various witnesses whose statements the Department had relied upon during the course of adjudication proceedings. In the case of adjudication proceedings for evasion of duty, the Department had recorded a large number of statements of various transporters, suppliers and other agencies, including those of the manufacturers, to establish that no goods were genuinely transported or received by the respondents. The attempt on the part of the Department was that various agencies through which the materials were alleged to have been transported did not support the version of the assessee. It was sought to be established that the vehicles were not the transport vehicles. Some of the vehicles never entered the State borders from outside. On such and other similar grounds, the Department desired to establish the case of a large -scale evasion of duty.

(2.) ONCE the adjudicating authority confirmed the duty and penalty, the issue reached the Tribunal. The question that the Tribunal considered for itself at the stage of requirement of pre -deposit was whether the assessees were entitled to cross -examination of the various important witnesses relied upon by the Revenue. There was a difference of opinion between two members forming the Bench. The learned Member (Technical) opined that the respondent should be asked to deposit certain sums by way of pre -deposit to enable them to pursue their appeals on merits. He gave detailed reasons why the cross -examination of different witnesses was not necessary. The learned Member (Judicial), however, held a different opinion. She expressed the view that the cross -examination of transporters and other witnesses was essential. She, therefore, held and observed as under (page 359 of 22 GSTR):

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel, Shri Darshan Parikh, for the Revenue and having perused the documents on record, it emerges that in this set of cases, the majority opinion was that the duty could not have been confirmed and penalty could not have been imposed without offering cross -examination of the important witnesses. The learned Member (Judicial) had held that from the beginning the stand of the respondents was that the cross -examination was necessary. It was this opinion, which the Third member agreed to. He, therefore, held that the conclusion of the learned Member (Judicial) was correct. We have already reproduced the relevant portion of the decision of the Member (Judicial), who earlier formed a Bench of the Tribunal. By virtue of such orders, the appeals should be placed before the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration for observing principles of natural justice.