2017 (12) TMI 1821 - HC - Central Excise

Principles of natural justice - reliability of statement of the witnesses who are not available for the cross-examination - HELD THAT - The revenue has not taken stand whether the adjudicating authority proposes to rely on the statements of 29 witnesses in respect of whom cross-examination opportunity has yet not been granted to the petitioner. The proceedings cannot be allowed to conclude in such uncertain facts. It is, therefore, desirable that the revenue may file a counter affidavit to the writ petition disclosing a clear stand in respect of the above within the next four weeks. Two weeks, thereafter, to the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit. List after six weeks.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Reliance on statements of witnesses not available for cross-examination in adjudicating proceedings.

Analysis:
The primary issue in this judgment revolves around the reliance on the statements of witnesses who are not available for cross-examination in adjudicating proceedings. The court noted that the revenue did not take a clear stand on whether the adjudicating authority intended to rely on the statements of 29 witnesses for whom cross-examination opportunities had not been provided to the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of following the principles of natural justice and relevant judgments from higher judicial forums, including the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India, on similar issues.

The court directed the revenue to file a counter affidavit within the next four weeks, clearly stating their position regarding the reliance on the statements of witnesses who were not available for cross-examination. Subsequently, the petitioner was granted two weeks to file a rejoinder affidavit. The court scheduled the next hearing after six weeks, during which time the proceedings were allowed to continue, but the adjudicating authority was prohibited from issuing any final orders.

Overall, the judgment underscores the significance of ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice in adjudicating proceedings. It highlights the need for clarity and transparency regarding the reliance on witness statements, particularly when cross-examination opportunities have not been provided. The court's intervention aimed to prevent the conclusion of proceedings based on uncertain facts and to uphold the integrity of the adjudication process.