2014 (2) TMI 542 - AT - Central Excise

Violation of principle of natural justice - Partial witness were examined - Though the process of cross examination was going on before the adjudicating authority during the period 2005-2006, the present impugned order stand passed by the Commissioner in the year 2011, without affording cross examination of the balance witnesses - Revenue contends that appellants have themselves dropped the cross examination of the remaining witnesses - Held that - After conducting the personal hearing in December, 2005 and February, 2006, the matter was kept pending for a long period and was again taken up for adjudication in October, 2008, after a gap of around 3 years. During the said period, the Commissioner could have called the witnesses for cross examination and could have completed the adjudication process well within time instead of justifying his action, on the ground that it was the appellants themselves who dropped the cross examination request - Therefore, impugned order is set aside once again and the matter remanded to the Commissioner for affording the cross examination of the said 5 witnesses, whose address stand given by the appellant - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Failure to adhere to directions for cross-examination of witnesses.
2. Dispute over dropping the request for cross-examination.
3. Delay in completing the adjudication process.
4. Request for cross-examination of remaining witnesses.

Issue 1: Failure to adhere to directions for cross-examination of witnesses:
The judgment addresses the failure of the Commissioner to adhere to the clear directions given by the Tribunal in a previous order regarding the cross-examination of witnesses. Despite summoning witnesses, only 6 out of 12 appeared for cross-examination. The appellants insisted on cross-examining the remaining 6 witnesses, emphasizing that the Tribunal's directions were not followed by the adjudicating authority.

Issue 2: Dispute over dropping the request for cross-examination:
The Revenue contended that the appellants themselves dropped the request for cross-examination of the remaining witnesses based on a record from a hearing in 2005. However, the appellants argued that there was no explicit withdrawal of the request, and subsequent actions, such as filing detailed replies and providing witness lists in 2008, indicated their continued interest in cross-examination. The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's interpretation, emphasizing the appellants' right to cross-examine all witnesses as directed.

Issue 3: Delay in completing the adjudication process:
The judgment highlighted a significant delay in completing the adjudication process, spanning several years from the initial hearings in 2005-2006 to a subsequent review in 2008. Despite opportunities to call witnesses for cross-examination and conclude the proceedings, the Commissioner justified the delay by attributing it to the appellants supposedly dropping their cross-examination request. The Tribunal criticized this justification, emphasizing the need for timely completion of proceedings.

Issue 4: Request for cross-examination of remaining witnesses:
The appellants provided a list of 6 remaining witnesses for cross-examination in 2013, expressing their willingness to cooperate and ensure the witnesses' attendance. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner, instructing the cross-examination of the 5 witnesses (excluding one) whose addresses were provided. The appellants were directed to assist the Revenue in facilitating witness attendance and urged to cooperate without unnecessary adjournments for a prompt re-adjudication of the matter.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of following Tribunal directions, upholding the right to cross-examine witnesses, addressing delays in adjudication processes, and ensuring cooperation for timely resolution of legal matters.

← Previous Next →