1998 (3) TMI 360 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice leading to miscarriage of justice, denial of opportunity to present case effectively, request for adjournment due to regular Counsel's surgery, cross-examination of witnesses, denial of natural justice, remand of case for de novo adjudication, cooperation for expedited proceedings, limiting cross-examination to three witnesses.

Analysis:
The case involves the issue of violation of principles of natural justice leading to a miscarriage of justice. The Appellants were not given an opportunity to present their case effectively due to the absence of their regular Counsel, who was undergoing surgery. The Counsel requested an adjournment to a later date in November 1997, but the Commissioner fixed a hearing on 21-10-1997. The Appellants' representatives appeared before the Commissioner but stated their inability to present the case or cross-examine witnesses due to the Counsel's absence. The Counsel argued that this denial of opportunity constituted a gross violation of natural justice, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

The Appellants requested that the pre-deposit of duty and penalty be waived, and the case be remanded to lower authorities for a fair hearing. The Counsel assured cooperation and proposed to cross-examine only three out of the 21 witnesses. The Respondent opposed the request, stating that the Appellants had been given opportunities and were delaying the proceedings by insisting on the presence of all witnesses simultaneously for cross-examination.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the Appellants' request for an adjournment was reasonable given the circumstances, and there was indeed a denial of natural justice. As a result, the Tribunal considered it a fit case for remand, waiving the pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for de novo adjudication, directing the Commissioner to decide the matter before 31st May 1998, ensuring an effective hearing and passing orders in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Stay applications were allowed, and the Appeals were also allowed by way of remand. The decision highlighted the importance of upholding the principles of natural justice, ensuring a fair hearing for all parties involved, and expediting the proceedings while limiting the cross-examination to expedite the resolution of the case.