2016 (9) TMI 1580 - AT - Customs

Violation of principles of Natural Justice - request for cross examination of various deponents of the statements which were relied upon in the show cause notice is denied - HELD THAT - Reasoning s adopted by the adjudicating authority in the present matter that cross examination cannot be permitted because the deponents of various statements are either co-noticee or employees of the assessees or relative of the assessee is not appreciable. In case the Revenue reliance is relatable to the said statements their examination in chief is required to be conducted and thereafter cross examination is to be allowed. The adjudicating authority is directed to allow the cross examination of the persons whose statements Revenue authorities intend to rely upon - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of request for cross-examination by the adjudicating authority.
2. Appealability of a communication indicating the decision of the adjudicating authority.
3. Consideration of statements recorded during investigation under section 14 of the Act.
4. Reasoning for not permitting cross-examination of certain deponents.
5. Applicability of Tribunal decisions and High Court judgments on cross-examination.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the denial of the appellants' request for cross-examination during adjudication proceedings. The Superintendent adjudication denied the request, leading to the present appeal. The Tribunal considered the appellants' request in light of previous decisions and directed the adjudicating authority to allow cross-examination of the persons whose statements the Revenue authorities intend to rely upon. The reasoning for not permitting cross-examination based on the relationship of deponents with the assessee was deemed unacceptable.

2. The issue of whether a communication indicating the decision of the adjudicating authority can be considered an adjudication order for the purpose of filing an appeal was raised. Citing a previous Tribunal decision in the case of Elora Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs. CCE Indore, where a similar communication was held to be appealable, the Tribunal in the present case allowed the appeals by remanding the matter for cross-examination.

3. The judgment delves into the significance of statements recorded during investigation under section 14 of the Act. It references the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in the case of M/s. Ambika International vs. Union of India, which emphasizes the requirement to examine such statements in chief. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for cross-examination aligns with this legal precedent.

4. The reasoning adopted by the adjudicating authority for not permitting cross-examination based on the relationship of deponents with the assessee was criticized. The judgment emphasizes the necessity to conduct examination in chief of relevant persons if Revenue authorities intend to rely on their statements, followed by allowing cross-examination.

5. The judgment extensively considers Tribunal decisions and High Court judgments on the issue of cross-examination. By referencing past legal precedents and decisions, the Tribunal provides a comprehensive analysis of the importance of allowing cross-examination in adjudication proceedings. The direction to permit cross-examination aligns with established legal principles and precedents, ensuring fair and thorough adjudication processes.