2019 (11) TMI 574 - HC - Customs

Principles of Natural Justice - Cross-examination of two co-noticees of this appellant company, were not allowed - demand of differential duty - HELD THAT - It appears from the facts of the case that while adjudicating the show cause notice, the Commissioner of Customs might have not relied upon the statements of Shri Vineet Saluja or Shri Pradeep Sharma. The process of adjudication of the show cause notice in question is yet to be completed - As and when the show cause notice is adjudicated upon and final order in original is passed, this appellant can always challenge the said order in original inter alia on the ground that the cross-examination of Shri Vineet Saluja and Shri Pradeep Sharma were not allowed. As and when final order in original is passed, this appellant always have an opportunity to prefer an appeal and to challenge the order in original on one more ground of non-availability of cross-examination. Beyond this, nothing is required to be observed by this Court. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Cross-examination of witnesses allowed by CESTAT.
2. Differential duty demanded by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
3. Appeal against denial of cross-examination.
4. Cross-examination of co-noticees not allowed.
5. Possibility to challenge final order based on cross-examination issue.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the judgment of CESTAT, where cross-examination of two witnesses was allowed, but denied for the other two witnesses. The appellant, served with a show cause notice by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, demanded cross-examination during adjudication.

2. The Commissioner of Customs did not rely on the statements of the witnesses for whom cross-examination was denied. The process of adjudication is pending, and upon completion, the appellant can challenge the final order based on the ground of non-availability of cross-examination for those witnesses.

3. The two witnesses for whom cross-examination was not allowed are co-noticees of the appellant company. The High Court did not express any opinion on whether their cross-examination should be permitted. The appellant has the opportunity to appeal the final order based on this ground if needed.

4. The High Court observed that beyond the issue of cross-examination, no further action is required. CESTAT did not entertain the appeal, and the High Court dismissed the appeal with the mentioned observations. The appellant can challenge the final order on the additional ground of non-availability of cross-examination for the co-noticees if necessary.