2002 (1) TMI 165 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Duty liability on manufacturer of chewing tobacco under Excise Tariff
- Imposition of penalties on manufacturer and partner for non-duty paid tobacco
- Request for cross-examination of witnesses
- Commissioner's abrupt termination of cross-examination
- Lack of explanation by Commissioner for conduct
- Unavailability of witnesses for cross-examination
- Remand of the matter for genuine efforts to enforce witness attendance

Analysis:
The judgment involves multiple issues related to duty liability, penalties, and procedural fairness. The manufacturer of chewing tobacco was held liable for duty under the Excise Tariff, with penalties imposed for non-duty paid tobacco. The crux of the matter revolved around the request for cross-examination of witnesses by the manufacturer, which was initially accepted by the Commissioner. However, the Commissioner abruptly terminated the cross-examination process without a valid explanation, leading to concerns about procedural fairness and natural justice.

The Counsel for the manufacturer argued that once the request for cross-examination was accepted, it should not have been reversed midway through the proceedings. The Commissioner's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for halting the cross-examination raised doubts about the fairness of the process. It was highlighted that efforts to enforce witness attendance were lacking, especially in the case of departmental officers who were under the Commissioner's control.

The judgment emphasized the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity for cross-examination to ensure a fair hearing. It was noted that the Commissioner's order relied on statements of witnesses who were not adequately cross-examined, leading to a lack of procedural fairness. As a result, the matter was remanded for the Commissioner to make genuine efforts to enforce witness attendance and allow for proper cross-examination before passing new orders.

In conclusion, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside due to the procedural irregularities and lack of adequate cross-examination of witnesses. The judgment underscored the significance of upholding principles of natural justice and ensuring a fair and transparent adjudicatory process in matters of duty liability and penalties under the Excise Tariff.