2013 (12) TMI 279 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of Cross examination Held that - There was no merit in the reasons adjudicated by the Commissioner for denying the cross examination s request - the appellant cannot be attributed to any melafide intention to delay the adjudication proceedings on account of cross examination - Following Laxman Exports Ltd. V/s. CCE 2002 (4) TMI 66 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - the assessee specifically asked to cross examine the representatives to establish that the goods had been accounted for - Matter remitted back to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication after observing the principles of natural justice Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in denying cross-examination request.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, delivered by Archana Wadhwa, addressed the issue of violation of principles of natural justice in denying a cross-examination request. The appellant had requested cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the Commissioner for adjudication. The Commissioner denied the request citing its belated timing, made two years after the show cause notice issuance. The Tribunal found no merit in the reasons given by the Commissioner for denial, emphasizing the importance of cross-examination in testing the veracity of statements. It distinguished a Supreme Court decision cited by the Revenue, stating it was not relevant to the case at hand. The Tribunal highlighted various Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the importance of following natural justice principles, including the right to cross-examine witnesses to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of cross-examination had been extensively addressed in previous cases, and it was well-established that witnesses relied upon by the Revenue should be made available for cross-examination to ensure natural justice. The Tribunal emphasized that the statements of buyers were crucial evidence and needed to be adjudged through cross-examination. The appellant's argument regarding the production capacity not aligning with the Revenue's allegations was also acknowledged, with the Tribunal allowing the appellant to raise this issue before the adjudicating authority on remand.

Regarding technical aspects, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner to provide copies of relevant extracts from technical books mentioned in the manufacturing process to the appellant for comments, as these were not found on the relevant pages as claimed. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need to observe principles of natural justice. The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any views on the merits of the case and left it to the Adjudicating Authority to decide accordingly. The Tribunal expected the Commissioner to expedite the proceedings on remand, urging the appellant to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments. All appeals were allowed by way of remand, granting a fresh opportunity for adjudication while upholding the importance of natural justice principles in the process.