9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of products as fungicides or disinfectants, Violation of principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity for cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner.
In this case, the petitioner challenged the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise regarding the classification of products as fungicides or disinfectants. The petitioner alleged a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of an opportunity for cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner. The Collector held that expert opinion is only a piece of evidence and relied on various statements of the employees supported by documentary evidence. The judgment in the case of Kanungo & Co., v. Collector was cited to support the Collector's decision that not every matter requires cross-examination of persons giving an opinion. The court emphasized that the necessity of cross-examination depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, especially in proceedings under the Central Excise Act where criminal jurisprudence principles may not strictly apply. The court referred to the case of K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India and Others, highlighting that fair play in administrative or quasi-judicial actions must be considered based on the particular dispute between parties. The judgment emphasized that if the credibility of a witness is in doubt or if there is a dispute over the version of events, the right to cross-examination becomes essential. However, when there is no dispute over facts and no demand for cross-examination, the absence of such an opportunity may not invalidate the decision if no prejudice is caused. The court noted that the findings in this case were supported by statements of employees and documentary evidence, even though the Chemical Examiner was not cross-examined. The court acknowledged that the Central Excises and Salt Act provides an avenue for appeal to the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal against the Collector's order. Due to the need for factual examination of various statements and documents, the court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks. The court also allowed the petitioner to apply for dispensing with the pre-deposit, considering the closure of the company's business. The Tribunal was instructed to consider the stay application sympathetically and make a decision within one month of filing. The court disposed of the writ petition accordingly, emphasizing the importance of following due process while balancing the requirements of fair play and administrative efficiency in such cases.
|
