1989 (10) TMI 162 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Stay petitions arising from common orders, cross-examination of witnesses, reliance on statements, request for summoning account books, violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The Stay Petitions in this case stemmed from common orders passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise and the Collector of Central Excise in relation to the manufacturing and clearance of goods without payment of excise duty. The appellants were accused of clearing excisable goods without invoices and misclassification. The Department relied on statements from dealers, prompting the appellants to seek cross-examination. The High Court emphasized the right to cross-examine and access to account books. The appellants' plea to summon witnesses with their account books was denied, leading to a claim of violation of natural justice principles.

During adjudication, the appellants were asked to select persons for cross-examination. Despite four witnesses supporting them, one provided evidence against them. The appellants repeatedly requested the witnesses to bring their account books for cross-examination, which was rejected by the adjudicating authority citing non-reliance by the Department on those account books. The rejection was reiterated in subsequent communications, including a letter from the Collector's office.

The S.D.R. argued that if reliance was placed on third-party statements, allowing cross-examination with reference to account books would uphold natural justice principles. The Tribunal highlighted the right to challenge statements made behind one's back through cross-examination. It emphasized the importance of account books in verifying transactions and noted the necessity of summoning witnesses with their account books for a fair assessment. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, remitting the appeals for reconsideration while ensuring the appellants' right to a reasonable opportunity to be heard, emphasizing adherence to natural justice principles.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the significance of cross-examination, access to account books, and upholding principles of natural justice in adjudication processes. The decision to remit the appeals for reconsideration underscored the need for a fair and just assessment, ensuring the appellants' rights were respected throughout the proceedings.