2020 (7) TMI 699 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of application - availability of alternative remedy - Principle sof natural justice - opportunity to cross examine 50 witnesses not granted, whom the appellant/assessee intended to cross examine during the course of assessment proceedings before the learned Commissioner - HELD THAT - Since the learned single Judge has only relegated the appellant to the effective alternative remedy, we are inclined to examine the details of the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Assessee as to whether opportunity to cross examine the witnesses was required to be given in the present case or not or whether sufficient opportunity was already given to the Assessee or not. We cannot appreciate short circuiting the normal procedure of appellate forums to be availed by the Assessee in such cases. Merely because there has been an alleged breach of principles of natural justice, the Assessee is not allowed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the learned Single Judge therefore, in our opinion, was perfectly justified in relegating the appellant back to the alternative remedy. The Tribunal being the final fact finding body, is expected to look into all the aspects of the matter, including the aspect raised before the learned Single Judge about the cross examination of the witnesses. Whether the Assessee was given sufficient opportunity or not whether such cross examining was necessary at all or not, are all aspects which the Tribunal can very well consider in the appeal, if any filed by the Assessee. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Opportunity for cross-examination not granted by the learned single Judge.
2. Appellant's approach to the High Court instead of the Tribunal for remedy.
3. Examination of merits of contentions regarding cross-examination necessity.
4. Justification for relegating the appellant back to the alternative remedy.
5. Granting a limited relief for filing an appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the Assessee against an order of the learned single Judge challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The main contention was the lack of opportunity to cross-examine 50 witnesses during assessment proceedings. The single Judge directed the Assessee to seek remedy before the Tribunal, granting a three-month period for the same. However, the Assessee approached the High Court through intra court appeals instead of the Tribunal.

The learned counsel for the Assessee reiterated the need for cross-examination, while the Revenue's counsel argued that sufficient opportunities were provided, and the Assessee caused delays by repeatedly seeking more opportunities. The High Court opined that the single Judge rightly directed the Assessee to pursue the alternative remedy before the Tribunal. The Court emphasized the importance of following the normal procedure of appellate forums and not bypassing them, even in cases of alleged breach of natural justice.

The High Court highlighted that the Tribunal, as the final fact-finding body, should examine all aspects, including the necessity of cross-examination. The Court granted a limited relief of four weeks for the Assessee to file an appeal before the Tribunal, requesting the Tribunal to consider the appeal without objections regarding the limitation period, subject to fulfilling other conditions for filing the appeal. The Court emphasized expeditious resolution of the matter, considering its relevance to the year 2004.

In conclusion, the writ appeals were disposed of without any costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The judgment underscored the importance of following the prescribed appellate procedures and seeking remedies through the appropriate forums, such as the Tribunal, for effective resolution of legal disputes.