Case Details: Endico Power Tools India vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ludhiana (2026) 39 Centax 152 (Tri.-Chan)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- S.S. Garg, Member (J) & P. Anjani Kumar, Member (T)
- Shri A.S. Gill, Adv., for the Appellants.
- S/Shri Aniram Meena & Shantanu Kumar Meena, Authorized Representatives, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellants consisted of three small-scale proprietary units engaged in the assembly of handheld power tools. Each unit operated under separate brands, premises, electricity connections, manpower, registrations, bank accounts, books of account, and returns. The department alleged that clearances had been split in order to avail an SSI exemption. To support this, searches were conducted, statements of proprietors and staff were recorded, and documents were collected. A common SCN was issued, alleging clubbing of clearances. The Principal Commissioner clubbed the clearances of two units with those of the assessee unit and confirmed the demand along with interest and penalties. The appellants repeatedly requested cross-examination of the makers of the relied-upon statements and the supply of non-relied-upon documents. These requests were denied without recorded reasons. The matter was subsequently placed before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that the adjudication primarily rested on statements recorded during the investigation. It was also observed that repeated requests for cross-examination of the makers of the relied-upon statements were denied without any cogent reason. The Tribunal further held that such a denial constituted a serious violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby rendering the statements unusable against the appellants. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to afford cross-examination and to decide the case afresh.
List of Cases Cited
- Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner — 2015 (324) E.L.T. 641 (SC) — Referred [Para 4.5]
- Basudev Garg v. Commissioner — 2013 (294) E.L.T. 353 (Del.) — Referred [Para 4.5]
- Chirag Electronics v. Commissioner — 2015 (3) TMI 128-CESTAT NEW DELHI — Referred [Para 5.2]
- Commissioner v. Venkateswara Silk Mills — (2024) 25 Centax 403 (Telangana) — Referred [Para 4.5]
- Elora Tobacco Co. Ltd v. Commissioner — 2017 (347) E.L.T. 614 (Tri.-Del) — Referred (Paras 4.1, 4.5]
- G. Tech Industries v. UOI — 2016 (339) E.L.T. 209 (P&H.) — Referred [Para 4.5]
- Him Logistics Pvt Ltd v. Pr. Commissioner — 2016 (336) E.L.T. 15 (Del.) — Referred [Para 4.1, 4.5]
- J & K Cigarettes Ltd v. Commissioner — 2011 (22) S.T.R. 225 (Del.) — Referred [Para 4.5]
- Jindal Drugs Pvt Ltd v. UOI — 2016 (340) E.L.T. 67 (P&H.) — Relied on [Paras 4.1, 4.5, 9]
- Pap Flon Engineering Co. Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner — 2022 (381) E.L.T. 500 (Tri.-Ahmd) — Referred [Para 4.8]
- Phoolchand Metals Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner — (2024) 16 Centax 3 (Tri. Ahmd.) — Referred [Para 4.5]
- Precision Equipment Co. v. Commissioner — 2024 (04) LCX 0313 — Referred [Para 4.8]
