ORDER
Jeet Ram Kait, Member(T)
1. The appellants Shri Ashok Saraf and Shri Promod Saraf are Director and Chief Executive of M/s. Jai Bhavani Steel Enterprises. Since the controversy in the present appeals lie in a narrow compass and since the main appeal against the appellant-company namely M/s. Jai Bhavani Steel Enterprises has been allowed by way of remand, we grant waiver of pre-deposit and penalty amounts by allowing the stay petition and proceed to decide the appeals itself on merits with the consent of both sides.
2. The proceedings were initiated against the appellant-company on the strength of show cause notice alleging that they had received the inputs without the cover of any documents from M/s. Sujana Industries Ltd. and thereafter removed the final products manufactured out of those goods in a clandestine manner to third parties during the period in dispute. The appellant Shri Pramod Saraf, Chief Executive was imposed a penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs and Shri Ashok Saraf, Director was imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. The allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods against the appellant had been based mainly on the ground that the appellant had received the unaccounted inputs i.e. scrap from M/s. Sujana Industries Ltd. and the statements of witnesses which were recorded at the back of the appellants during the investigation, had been used against them by the adjudicating authority while passing the impugned order. In the Final Order No. 651/2003 dated 22.8.2003 passed by this Tribunal, it was noticed that cross-examination of those witnesses was never allowed to them and as such those statements could not be used as a substantive evidence under the law against the appellants.
4. Heard Counsel Shri Jayakumar and Shri C. Mani, DR.
5. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have also perused the Final Order No. 651/2003 dated 22.8.2003, in which it has been held that the appellant-company could not be saddled with the duty liability and the penalty, as detailed in the impugned order by the adjudicating authority, on the strength of evidence of witnesses whose cross-examination was denied to them. The impugned order, on the face of it, can be said to have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication since the appeal of the main appellant M/s. Jai Bhavani Steel Enterprises has been remanded. The matter may be decided afresh after allowing appellant full opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses whose evidence had been relied upon by the department and referred in the show cause notice. The appellant shall be given full opportunity of cross-examining as well as to adduce any evidence in support of their defence and thus the matter will be decided afresh in the de novo proceedings. The appeals of the appellants stand allowed by way of remand.