Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sujana Metal Products Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 13 February, 2018
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD BENCH - SM COURT - I Appeal(s) Involved: E/22711/2014-SM, E/22712/2014-SM, E/22713/2014-SM (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 10&11&12-2014 dated 11/03/2014 passed by Commissioner Of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals-I & III), HYDERABAD) Sujana Metal Products Ltd Appellant(s) Bellary Murali Appellant(s) Glade Steels Pvt Ltd Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax HYDERABAD-III Respondent(s) Appearance: Mr. B. Venugopal, Adv for the Appellant. Mr. M. Chandra Bose, A.R. for the Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE Mr. M.V.RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing: 13/02/2018 Date of Decision: 13/02/2018 Final Order No. A/ 30184-30186 / 2018 [Order per: M.V.RAVINDRAN. ] .
All these three appeals are directed against orders-in-appeal No. 10&11&12-2014 dated 11/03/2014.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. Before the arguments could proceed on merits of the case learned counsel submits that he is going to press the point of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act 1944 as is interpreted by the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Jindal Drugs Pvt Ltd Vs UOI [2016(340)ELT 67 (P&H)] and G-Tech Industries Vs UOI [2016(339)ELT 209(P&H)] and submits that the law is now settled on this point that the provisions of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act 1944 needs to be followed in its entirety.
4. On the other hand learned A.R. submits that Honble High Court of State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Manidhari Stainless Wire Pvt Ltd [2017-TIOL-2386-HC-AP-CX] has ruled recently that the right to cross-examine is not absolute and there is nothing shown on the records in these cases that denial of cross-examination was jeopardizing the case of the appellant.
5. In my considered view, on perusal of records, I find that the appellants herein were asking for cross-examination of various persons in their reply to the show-cause notice. I find that once cross-examination is sought for, the law as decided by High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Jindal Drugs Pvt Ltd and G-Tech Industries, needs to be followed by the adjudicating authority in respect of the statements on which reliance is to be placed. In my view, the matter needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority in respect of the claim of cross-examination as sought by the appellant and also to follow the law as settled by the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Jindal Drugs Pvt Ltd and G-Tech Industries. As regards the reliance placed by the learned A.R. on the judgement of Honble High Court of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case of Manidhari Stainless Steel Wire Pvt Ltd., I find that in that case there was a rejection of the cross-examination on the factual findings of the adjudicating authority, while in the cases in hand both the lower authorities have not recorded any reasoning for rejecting the request for cross-examination. Hence the reliance placed by the learned A.R. will not carry the case any further for Revenue.
6. Accordingly in view of the foregoing, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are disposed of by way of remand to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice and also the law on Section 9 D of the Central Excise Act 1944 as settled by the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Appeals stand disposed of by way of remand.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court) M.V.RAVINDRAN MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Neela Reddy 3