2011 (12) TMI 184 - HC - Central Excise

Principles of natural justice Petitioners claimed to be manufacturer and purchaser of Pan Masala respectively - Department, held that the product is not classifiable as Pan Masala on the basis of the material collected including Chemical Examiner s report - Court vide order dated 28.4.2011 permitted cross examination of Chemical Examiner by petitioners - grievance of the petitioners is that instead of examining Chemical Examiner for cross-examination, the adjudicating authority only examined Assistant Chemical Examiner and further that necessary documents and records were not made available leading to violation of principles of natural justice Held that - It clearly emerges that the proceedings are still pending. Any grievance with respect to the conduct of the enquiry can as well be raised once the final order is passed. Whether principles of natural justice are violated or not and if so what would be the effect on the ultimate conclusions and the order of the adjudicating authority are issues not possible for us to contemplate upon at this interim stage. Therefore, keeping all rights and contentions of the petitioners open to be raised once the final order is passed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Cross-examination of Chemical Examiner in adjudication proceedings.
2. Availability of necessary documents and records for cross-examination.
3. Allegations of violation of principles of natural justice by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
1. The case involved Special Civil Application No.18786 of 2011 where the Department initiated adjudication proceedings against the petitioners regarding the classification of their product as Pan Masala based on the Chemical Examiner's report. The petitioners sought cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner, which was initially granted but later denied by a new officer. Previous petitions on this issue were disposed of without expressing an opinion, leaving it to be argued before the Adjudicating Authority.

2. The petitioners filed new petitions seeking a writ of prohibition and mandamus to prevent the adjudicating authority from proceeding without providing necessary documents and records from the Customs House Laboratory, Kolkata. They alleged that they were handicapped in the proceedings as the documents were not made available, despite assurances from the authority. The petitioners argued that the authority's actions were unreasonable and violated principles of natural justice.

3. The Court declined to examine the petitioners' contentions at an interim stage, emphasizing that the proceedings were ongoing, and no final order had been passed yet. The Court stated that it was premature to determine if principles of natural justice were violated or speculate on the outcome of the final order. The Court advised the petitioners to raise any grievances after the final order is issued, maintaining that all rights and contentions could be addressed at that stage.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner, the availability of necessary documents, and the allegations of violation of natural justice by the adjudicating authority. The Court's decision to refrain from intervening at an interim stage underscores the importance of addressing grievances after the final order is passed.