CCI Orders Probe into PVR Inox’s VPF Charges for Filmmakers  ||  Bombay HC Dismisses Anil Ambani's Plea against SBI's Fraud Loan Classification  ||  Madras HC Rejects CBI Probe Pleas in Karur Stampede; Govt Bans Political Meets  ||  Gujarat HC Rejects Stay on Partial Demolition of 400-Year-Old Mosque for Road Widening  ||  Karnataka High Court: PTCL Act Can Apply Again if Restored Land is Later Transferred  ||  Delhi HC: Courier Agency Liable for Penalty if it Fails to Report Suspicious Consignment to Customs  ||  Delhi HC Bars Rupa from Selling 'Coat-Pocket' Constitution Edition in EBC-Like Trade Dress  ||  Delhi HC Protects Telugu Actor Nagarjuna’s Rights, Bars Unauthorized Use of Name & Image  ||  Delhi HC Rejects NEET-UG Candidate’s Plea for OMR Re-Checking, Cites No Arbitrariness  ||  MP HC Denies Bail to Lawyer, Accused of Minor Rape, Trafficking    

Mandev Tubes and Ors. v. C.C.E. & S. Tax, Vapi - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (13 Jun 2017)

Statement of person relied upon in confirming demand be allowed to be cross-examined

MANU/CS/0097/2017

Excise

Appellants are engaged in manufacture of copper tubes and availed benefit of CENVAT credit on various inputs, including copper ingots. On basis of investigation by DGCEI, it was alleged that, Appellant during period May 2003 to April 2004, had wrongly availed credit of Rs. 40,99,008/- only on basis of input invoices without receiving goods mentioned against those invoices in their factory premises. Accordingly, Assessee was issued with a show cause notice for recovery of said inadmissible credit along with interest and penalty. On adjudication, demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by said order, appeal was filed before Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their appeals. Hence, present appeals.

Assessee-appellant has requested cross-examination of witnesses. Authorities below had denied cross-examination of said witness without any valid reason. Also, statements of said witnessed were relied and accepted by adjudicating authority in confirming proceeding against Appellant. In these circumstances, adjudicating authority ought to have allowed cross-examination of these witnesses and also should have afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing instead of giving three dates of hearing in one single letter.

It has been held in a series of cases including in case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. C.C.E., Kolkatta II MANU/SC/1250/2015 that, statement of person relied upon in confirming demand be allowed to be cross-examined. In result, impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed by way of remand to adjudicating authority for deciding the issue afresh after allowing cross-examination witnesses, and affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to Appellant.

Relevant : Andaman Timber Industries vs. C.C.E., Kolkatta II MANU/SC/1250/2015: 2015 (324) ELT 641 (SC)

Tags : WITNESSES   CROSS-EXAMINATION   DEMAND   CONFIRMATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved