GANDHI FIBRES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER dispensing with the condition of pre -deposit duty and penalties, we proceed to decide the appeal itself by a common order, as we are convinced about the violation of principles of natural justice by the Commissioner as also in view of other factors discussed subsequently by us. We are of the view that the matters need to be re -adjudicated.

(2.) THE demand in the instant case stand confirmed against M/s. Gandhi Fibres, who is a 100% EOU, along with imposition of penalty on the ground that the duty free procured goods by the said appellant stand diverted by them in the local market as against their claim of having used the same in the manufacture of final product either in their own factory or through job work. The above allegations and findings of the adjudicating authority are based upon the extensive investigations made by the Revenue and the statements of witnesses recorded during the course of such investigation. The adjudicating authority has referred to statements of high sea sellers, transporters, representatives of consignee EOU, job workers and middlemen etc. to support the Revenues case that the duty free procured material was never put to use by the said appellant, but was sold in the open market. Commissioner has also relied upon the reports obtained from check -post authorities and concerned RTOs to support the conclusion that various vehicles shown in the invoices never passed through said check -post. Further, reference also stand made to the fact that vehicle numbers mentioned in the invoices issued by the appellant, were not capable of transporting the goods in question.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned advocate Shri C. Harishankar, and learned Jt. CDR, we find from the impugned order itself that the appellant made request for supply of some of the documents which were necessary for preparation of defence. Only interim reply (which also happens to be very detailed one), denying the allegations was filed by the appellant. Inasmuch as Revenues allegations were based upon the statements of the various persons, the appellant also made a prayer for cross -examination of the deponents so as to test the veracity of the statements. Accordingly, in the said interim reply, appellant reserved their right to file detailed reply after completing the cross -examination. It is seen that neither documents were supplied on the ground that they were not relied upon documents nor the cross -examination was allowed by the Commissioner. The appellant has also made a specific request for allowing cross -examination of various witnesses, with reasons advanced thereby. In their letter dt. 20 -12 -07, the appellants submitted as under : It may please be appreciated that once this decision on cross -examination of witnesses is communicated to us, we would like to start cross -examining the witnesses summoned (in case our request is allowed). In case the request for cross -examination is denied for any reason, which may please be specified in your communication, we would like to file our final submission within a short period.