2008 (10) TMI 245 - HC - Central Excise

Adjudication - Principles of Natural justice - Strictures against Commissioner - Held that - The Tribunal having given the assessee an opportunity of cross-examination, on facts of the case, we do not find any ground to hold at such a view was liable to be interfered with in appeal under Section 35-G of the Act, which lies only on substantial questions of law

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order remanding the case back to the Commissioner
- Cross-examination of witnesses without prejudice
- Violation of principles of natural justice in denying cross-examination

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise against an order passed by the Tribunal regarding the remand of a case. The substantial questions of law raised included the justification of remanding the case back to the Commissioner, the validity of cross-examining witnesses without prejudice, and whether the denial of cross-examination violated the principles of natural justice.

2. The Revenue had raised a demand against the assessee for clandestine removal of goods without paying excise duty. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, leading to the remand of the case to the Commissioner for proper proceedings.

3. The Tribunal acknowledged the contention that the adjudication proceedings were concluded without allowing the assessee to cross-examine witnesses, who had given statements against the assessee without their knowledge. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of granting the assessee a fair opportunity in the interest of justice.

4. While tax authorities are not strictly bound by technical rules of evidence, the principles of natural justice necessitate providing the assessee with the chance to cross-examine witnesses when required by the facts. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the Tribunal highlighted the significance of cross-examination in establishing truth and exposing falsehood.

5. The Tribunal's decision to grant the assessee the opportunity for cross-examination was upheld, as it was found to be in line with the facts of the case. The judgment emphasized that interference in such matters under Section 35-G of the Act is limited to substantial questions of law.

6. Despite the passage of two years since the impugned order, the Commissioner failed to comply with the Tribunal's direction due to an appeal being filed. The judgment criticized the Commissioner's conduct, stating that such behavior cannot be appreciated. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision regarding the cross-examination issue.