2018 (10) TMI 844 - HC - Customs

Principles of Natural Justice - opportunity to cross-examine not provided - Whether the Tribunal right to hold that since the order of not granting cross-examination goes to route of the matter, this Tribunal sets aside the letter No. S/1030/ 201617/ CAC/NS-III/ Comm/JNCH dated 06.10.2016 with a direction to adjudicating authority to grant cross-examination as sought by the assessee and decide the matter after following principles of natural justice without appreciating various authorities decisions? Held that - Prima facie filing of such Appeals from the impugned order of the Tribunal which has worked itself out to the knowledge of the Appellant i.e. the Commissioner of Customs (NS-III) inasmuch as he has given effect to the impugned order of the Tribunal by passing the order dated 2nd February 2017 - In the absence of the above facts being pointed out in the Appeal memo and indicating the reason for filing this Appeal, it appears that it has been filed to harass an Assessee. Further, it is to be noted at the time of admission of Appeals, we do not insist on the Respondent being represented. The Appeal is adjourned to 26th September 2018 to enable the Revenue to explain/justify its conduct.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Question of law regarding the granting of cross-examination and principles of natural justice.
3. Infructuous nature of the appeal due to the Tribunal's order being acted upon by the Adjudicating Authority.
4. Allegation of appeal being filed to harass the Assessee without proper disclosure of facts.
5. Change in representation of the Revenue counsel leading to an adjournment.

Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns an appeal challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The issue revolves around the Tribunal's decision regarding the granting of cross-examination and adherence to principles of natural justice. The Revenue has raised a question of law questioning the Tribunal's directive to grant cross-examination, emphasizing the importance of this aspect in determining the case.

2. The judgment delves into the matter's history, highlighting the appeal's initial consideration where it was pointed out that the appeal had become infructuous. This was due to the Tribunal's order being implemented by the Adjudicating Authority, resulting in the confirmation of the show cause notice against the Respondent. The failure to disclose this crucial development in the appeal memo raised concerns about the appeal's intent, with suspicions that it might have been filed to harass the Assessee.

3. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of disclosure in the appeal memo and the absence of proper representation from the Respondent's side during the admission process. The judgment emphasizes the importance of accurate information being presented to the court, especially regarding post-order developments. The change in representation of the Revenue counsel further complicated the proceedings, leading to an adjournment to allow the Revenue to clarify and justify its actions.

In conclusion, the judgment scrutinizes the procedural aspects and ethical considerations surrounding the appeal, highlighting the need for transparency, proper disclosure, and adherence to legal principles throughout the judicial process.