2016 (5) TMI 443 - HC - Central Excise

Whether the judgment relied upon by the Appellate Tribunal to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for allowing the respondent to cross-examine the witness is correct - Held that - the appellant is unable to place any judgment holding a contrary view on the proposition of law as has been relied by the respondent as well as the law relied upon by the Appellate Tribunal in its judgment. Once the position of law is settled and a contrary view is not put forth by the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment rendered by the Appellate Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality which may call for an interference under the appellate jurisdiction of this Court by virtue of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is hereby confirmed. - Decided against the revenue

Summary

Issues:
- Central Excise Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944
- Requirement of allowing the respondent to cross-examine witnesses
- Applicability of judgments by the High Court and the Apex Court on the matter
- Confirmation of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to a Central Excise Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal arose from an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority to allow the respondent to cross-examine witnesses. The High Court observed that the requirement of law for cross-examination, as emphasized in a previous judgment by the Court, was appreciated and applied by the Tribunal in the present case. The appellant did not contest that the opportunity for cross-examination was available to the assessee as per the law laid down by the Court. The respondent's counsel supported their contention with a judgment from the Apex Court in a related case, further strengthening the position upheld by the High Court.

Moreover, the High Court noted that the appellant failed to present any judgment contradicting the established legal position relied upon by the respondent and the Tribunal. Given the absence of a contrary view and the settled legal position, the Court concluded that the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal did not exhibit any illegality warranting interference under the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the order of the Appellate Tribunal was confirmed. The parties were directed to appear before the adjudicating authority for further proceedings in accordance with the law.

In summary, the judgment addressed the necessity of allowing the respondent to cross-examine witnesses in a Central Excise Appeal, referencing relevant judgments by the High Court and the Apex Court to support the decision to confirm the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The legal position on cross-examination was deemed settled, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and a directive for the adjudicating authority to proceed lawfully in the matter.