2009 (4) TMI 967 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Alternative Remedy
2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
3. Coercion
4. Cross-Examination

Summary:

1. Alternative Remedy:
The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Central Excise authorities imposing duty, penalty, and confiscation. The respondents argued that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy. However, the court held that the writ petition is maintainable as the issue raised pertains to a question of law regarding the alleged violation of principles of natural justice, and the writ petition had been admitted and pending for ten years.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner contended that the orders should be set aside due to the violation of principles of natural justice, as they were not permitted to cross-examine the persons who gave statements during the investigation. The court found that the respondents did not solely rely on the statements but also on various documents and materials. The refusal to permit cross-examination did not vitiate the orders, as the findings were based on corroborated evidence, and the plea for cross-examination was seen as an attempt to prolong the issue.

3. Coercion:
The petitioner claimed that the statements were obtained by force and coercion. The court rejected this contention, noting the absence of retraction by the persons concerned and the lack of evidence to support the claim of coercion. The court referred to precedents where retracted confessions were still considered admissions and binding.

4. Cross-Examination:
The court held that the right to cross-examination depends on the facts of each case. In this case, the authorities rightly decided that cross-examination was not required, considering the relationship of the persons who gave the statements and the materials available on record. The court cited precedents where the denial of cross-examination did not amount to a violation of principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the orders passed by the respondents were valid in law, and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. The plea of coercion was not accepted, and the request for cross-examination was deemed unnecessary. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, and no costs were awarded.