2025-VIL-2065-CESTAT-DEL-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise – Sections 9D and 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 – Manufacture of scented supari – Allegation of clandestine removal – Admissibility of statements – Appellant is engaged in manufacture of Scented Supari – Department issued show cause notice alleging that Appellant had deliberately indulged in clandestine manufacture of excisable goods from unaccounted raw material and cleared finished product without cover of tax invoice – Additional Commissioner confirmed demand of excise duty – Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed order passed by Additional Commissioner – Whether statements made under Section 14 of the Act can be considered as relevant, if procedure contemplated under Section 9D of the Act has not been followed – HELD – Bare perusal of Section 9D of the Act make it evident that statement made under Section 14 of the Act during course of inquiry shall be relevant for purpose of proving truth of facts contained in them only when the person who made statement is examined as a witness before adjudicating authority and adjudicating authority had to form an opinion that said statement should be admitted in evidence. Provisions of Section 9D of the Act have been held to be mandatory and failure to comply with procedure would mean that no reliance can be placed on statements recorded under Section 14 of the Act. Order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding clandestine removal of goods is based on statement of Director and Supervisor of Appellant made under Section 14 of the Act. Aforesaid persons were not examined before adjudicating authority, therefore, their statements would have no relevance. Finding regarding clandestine removal of goods based on said statements cannot be sustained. Impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside – Appeal allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page