1990 (8) TMI 160 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of reasonable and adequate opportunity due to refusal to furnish copies of documents.
2. Presence of Investigating Officers during cross-examination.
3. Sequence of cross-examination of witnesses.
4. Alleged intimidation, duress, threat, and coercion in obtaining statements.
5. Violation of principles of natural justice and fair play.
6. Alleged violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Reasonable and Adequate Opportunity:
The petitioner claimed that the refusal to furnish copies of documents relied upon in the show cause notice amounted to the denial of reasonable and adequate opportunity. The Supreme Court directed the respondent to sift through the seized documents to identify those necessary for the Excise Department and to reimburse the petitioner for reasonable expenses incurred in taking copies of the documents it considered necessary. The respondent was also directed to return documents not relied upon by the department within four weeks.

2. Presence of Investigating Officers During Cross-Examination:
The petitioner objected to the presence of Investigating Officers during the cross-examination of witnesses, arguing that their presence would intimidate witnesses whose statements were allegedly obtained under intimidation, duress, threat, and coercion. The Collector overruled this objection, stating the department had a right to be assisted by the Investigating Officers and that their presence was necessary. The court upheld this decision, noting that the petitioner failed to provide specific evidence of intimidation or coercion and that the department's right to assistance outweighed the petitioner's objections.

3. Sequence of Cross-Examination of Witnesses:
The petitioner insisted on cross-examining witnesses in a specific order of preference. The Collector rejected this request, stating that adhering to the petitioner's sequence would lead to undue delay in completing the enquiry. The court supported the Collector's discretion in regulating the order of production and examination of witnesses to ensure fair and proper proceedings. The court noted that the petitioner would be allowed to cross-examine witnesses present on a particular day in its order of preference and could request the recall of witnesses if necessary.

4. Alleged Intimidation, Duress, Threat, and Coercion:
The petitioner alleged that the Investigating Officers obtained statements from its personnel under intimidation, duress, threat, and coercion. The court found these allegations vague and unsupported by specific evidence. The Collector indicated that if any instance of intimidation or coercion was substantiated, he would consider excluding the Investigating Officers during the examination of the affected witness.

5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Fair Play:
The court emphasized that the enquiry under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, was quasi-judicial in nature and should be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fair play. The court found that the Collector's procedures did not violate these principles, as the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present its case.

6. Alleged Violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner argued that the procedures adopted by the respondent violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India by denying equal treatment and fair trial. The court rejected this contention, stating that the procedures ensured fairness and did not deprive the petitioner of its rights. The court noted that the respondent's discretion in regulating the order of examination and the presence of Investigating Officers was reasonable and justified.

Judgment:
The writ petition was dismissed. The court directed the respondent to consider any plea regarding the presence of Investigating Officers potentially intimidating witnesses and to allow the petitioner to cross-examine witnesses present on a particular day in its order of preference. The respondent was also directed to consider any application for recalling witnesses for further cross-examination based on subsequent evidence. No order as to costs was made.