1991 (8) TMI 87 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Issuance of a writ of prohibition.
2. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Refusal to permit cross-examination of witnesses.
4. Impact of the Reward Scheme on adjudication.
5. Availability of alternative remedies.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issuance of a Writ of Prohibition:
The primary issue is whether a writ of prohibition could be issued to restrain the first respondent from proceeding with the adjudication without permitting cross-examination of witnesses. The court observed that a writ of prohibition is an instrument of judicial control to prevent an excess or abuse of jurisdiction by inferior tribunals. However, it is not meant to correct errors of law or procedure unless there is an excess of jurisdiction. The court concluded that since the proceedings before the first respondent had concluded and only the final order was pending, it was not appropriate to issue a writ of prohibition.

2. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioners argued that the refusal to allow cross-examination of witnesses violated the principles of natural justice. The court acknowledged that an order passed in violation of the audi alteram partem rule is a nullity. However, it emphasized that the application of natural justice principles depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India, which stated that cross-examination is not an integral part of quasi-judicial proceedings unless prejudice is demonstrated. The court found no sufficient grounds to presume that the first respondent would pass an adverse order without observing natural justice principles.

3. Refusal to Permit Cross-Examination of Witnesses:
The petitioners contended that the first respondent initially agreed to allow cross-examination but later arbitrarily refused. The court noted that the petitioners had the opportunity to argue the case on merits despite the refusal. The court held that the refusal to allow cross-examination did not automatically constitute a violation of natural justice, especially when the petitioners had refused to participate further in the proceedings.

4. Impact of the Reward Scheme on Adjudication:
The petitioners raised concerns about the Reward Scheme announced by the Government of India, which allegedly influenced the first respondent's decision. The court noted that the Supreme Court had stayed the Reward Scheme, and thus, it could not be used as a ground to challenge the first respondent's actions. The court found no evidence of bias or undue influence affecting the adjudication process.

5. Availability of Alternative Remedies:
The court emphasized that the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, provides for statutory appeals against any order passed, including appeals to the Appellate Tribunal and further appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd., which held that writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable when alternative statutory remedies are available. The court concluded that the petitioners should pursue their remedies under the Act after the final order is passed.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that a writ of prohibition was not warranted at this stage of the proceedings. The court found no violation of natural justice principles and emphasized the availability of alternative statutory remedies for the petitioners. The court also dismissed concerns about the Reward Scheme, noting that it had been stayed by the Supreme Court.