2017 (3) TMI 1077 - AT - Central Excise

Natural justice - whether the impugned order is vitiated for lack of proper opportunity of cross examining the witnesses of the Revenue and also if the order have been passed in haste without adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellants herein? - Held that - there is failure on the part of the learned Commissioner in giving intimation to the appellants as regards the persons in respect of whom the cross-examination was refused, secondly the cross-examination after being conducted in part of only four persons have been abruptly stopped without there being any recording in the order sheet why the learned Commissioner did not complete the process of cross-examination of the other persons as permitted by him. Also, no notice was given to the appellants bloat the process of cross-examination have been stopped and or completed from the side of Revenue, neither any opportunities was given to the parties to file their final reply in the matter and consequently they were not heard before passing of the impugned order - thus, there have been violation of the principles of Natural Justice and the provisions of Section 9D of the CEA, 1944 - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Lack of proper opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses.
2. Alleged haste in passing the order without adequate hearing.
3. Miscarriage of justice due to procedural lapses.
4. Violation of principles of Natural Justice and Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Lack of Proper Opportunity for Cross-Examination of Witnesses:
The core issue in these appeals is whether the impugned order is vitiated due to the lack of proper opportunity for cross-examining the witnesses of the Revenue. The appellants argued that they were not given the opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses, which is a crucial part of their defense. The Tribunal noted that the request for cross-examination of several individuals was made, but the process was not completed. The order sheet indicated that cross-examination dates were fixed, but there was no further record of the cross-examinations being conducted. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner failed to provide reasons for refusing the cross-examination of certain witnesses and did not notify the appellants about the closure of the cross-examination process. This failure constituted a violation of the principles of Natural Justice.

2. Alleged Haste in Passing the Order Without Adequate Hearing:
The appellants contended that the order was passed in haste without giving them an adequate opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal observed that the appellants were not given sufficient notice or opportunity to file their final replies and were not heard before the passing of the impugned order. The Tribunal emphasized that the principles of Natural Justice require that parties be given a fair chance to present their case, which was not adhered to in this instance.

3. Miscarriage of Justice Due to Procedural Lapses:
The Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' argument that there was a miscarriage of justice due to procedural lapses. The learned counsel for the appellants highlighted that the cross-examination of only four individuals was conducted, and the process was abruptly stopped. Additionally, there was no communication regarding the denial of cross-examination for certain witnesses. The Tribunal found that the lack of proper communication and incomplete cross-examination process led to a miscarriage of justice.

4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order violated the principles of Natural Justice and Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The failure to provide adequate opportunity for cross-examination, the abrupt stoppage of the cross-examination process, and the lack of notice for filing final replies constituted a breach of Natural Justice. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to re-adjudicate the matter after giving the appellants a proper opportunity for cross-examination, filing final replies, and personal hearings.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, setting aside the impugned order. The Commissioner was directed to provide reasons for refusing cross-examination, complete the cross-examination process, allow the filing of final replies, and grant personal hearings in accordance with the law. The appellants were instructed to appear before the Commissioner within 90 days from the date of receipt of the Tribunal's order to seek the opportunity for a fair hearing. The appeals were thus allowed with specific directions to ensure adherence to the principles of Natural Justice.