2016 (7) TMI 127 - HC - Central Excise

Clandestine removal of goods - violation of principles of natural justice in not permitting the appellant to cross examine the persons from whom statements were recorded - Held that - After going through the impugned order made in appeal No.E/40772/2014 dated 02.11.2015 of the CESTAT, Chennai, we find that the plea regarding violation of principles of natural justice, in not permitting the appellant to cross examine the persons from whom statements were recorded / witnesses, has not been dealt with and answered, by the tribunal. When a specific plea regarding violation of principles of natural justice is raised, CESTAT, Chennai, is bound to record a specific finding, which is conspicuously absent. CESTAT, Chennai, directed to pass appropriate orders only on the specific aforesaid issue - Decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against CESTAT order regarding violation of natural justice in cross-examination.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, arising from an order by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) between NGA Steels Private Limited and Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem.
2. The appellant contended before the appellate authority that there was a violation of principles of natural justice in not allowing cross-examination of persons from whom statements were recorded. The appellate authority rejected this contention stating that cross-examination is not an absolute right.
3. The appellant then moved CESTAT, Chennai, which set aside the order of the appellate authority and remanded the matter for fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides.
4. The issue of cross-examination was reconsidered by the appellate authority, which held that the right to cross-examination is not absolute and depends on the facts of the case. The appellate authority's decision was challenged before CESTAT, Chennai, on the grounds of denial of opportunity for cross-examination.
5. CESTAT, Chennai, confirmed the demand with concessional penalty and interest, leading to the filing of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal questioning the justification of CESTAT's decision on various substantial questions of law.
6. The High Court observed that CESTAT did not address the plea regarding violation of natural justice in not allowing cross-examination, and it was necessary for CESTAT to record a specific finding on this issue when raised. The court decided in favor of the appellant on this ground and remanded the matter back to CESTAT for a specific finding on the cross-examination issue.
7. The court directed CESTAT to pass appropriate orders on the cross-examination issue within two months from the date of the order, emphasizing the importance of addressing the specific plea raised by the appellant.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment comprehensively, focusing on the violation of natural justice in cross-examination as the central point of contention.