Case Details: Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise and ST, Vadodara-I vs. Pareshbhai Ramabhai Amin (2026) 39 Centax 379 (Guj.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- A.S. Supehia & Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
- Shri Deepak N Khanchandani, for the Appellant.
Facts of the Case
The respondent-assessee was proceeded against by the department on allegations of clandestine manufacture and clearance of pan masala containing tobacco classifiable under Tariff Item 2403 99 90 from premises associated with a tobacco concern. A search conducted at the said premises resulted in the seizure of certain machinery and goods, following which the department alleged that the respondent, along with a co-noticee, had undertaken illicit manufacture of gutkha using machines installed at the premises and effected clearances under invoices of the said concern. A show cause notice was issued, and the Commissioner confirmed duty along with interest and imposed penalties on the respondent and the co-noticee while relying primarily on statements of panch witnesses and other persons recorded during the investigation, and the request for cross-examination of those witnesses was declined on the ground that their statements were only corroborative in nature. The respondent challenged the adjudication order before the tribunal, contending that there was no documentary evidence of partnership, tenancy, or involvement in manufacture, and that reliance on statements without permitting cross-examination rendered the proceedings legally unsustainable; the tribunal set aside the order. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the approach of the adjudicating authorities was contrary to principles of fair adjudication as reliance had been placed on statements of panch witnesses and co-noticees without granting the requested opportunity of cross-examination. It observed that once such statements formed the basis of the case set up by the department, denial of cross-examination would seriously affect the legality and evidentiary value of the adjudication. The Court further noted that no tangible or independent corroborative evidence had been produced to connect the respondent with the alleged manufacture of gutkha at the said premises. In these circumstances, the Court found no illegality or infirmity in the CESTAT’s order and held that the department’s appeal was liable to be dismissed.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Pareshbhai Ramanbhai Amin v. Commissioner — (2026) 39 Centax 380 (Tri. – Ahmd) — Affirmed [Paras 1, 2, 2.2, 3, 4]
List of Cases Cited
- N.S. Mahesh v. Commissioner — 2016 (331) E.L.T. 402 (Ker.) — Distinguished [Paras 2.3, 4]
