9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey had repeatedly requested for an opportunity to be given to them for cross-examination of the said officers of theirs to enable them to explain the matter properly. Even on the day of the personal hearing they had given a letter to the Collector with a submission, wherein also they had reiterated their request for the opportunity of cross-examination. This was denied to them. The Collector had observed in his order it was pointed out to them that they had already made their submissions in their reply to the show cause notice taking into consideration the statements made by the concerned officers and hence there is no need for cross-examination which would only delay the matter without any improvement in the result whereupon they did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut there being no need for the cross-examination they had reportedly not pressed the issue further. Therefore, it is clear that they had dropped their request for personal hearing. Such being the case, it is not open to them to say that they had been denied the opportunity to cross-examine their officers whose statements had been relied upon in the show cause notice. After all they were their own officers and they could have produced them for examination as witnesses. There is no denial of natural justice in the given circumstances of this case. The Collector had considered their reply and given a finding. The stay may not be granted. 3. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the applicants had been pressi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... losed mind. The plea made by the learned Counsel in this regard is acceptable. In the majority decision dated 25-7-1989 of the North Regional Bench in Chandra Industries, Jalandhar v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh in Appeal No. E 1627 of 1986, which is as yet unreported, it was held that serious prejudice was likely to be caused to the appellants if they were not given the opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied upon by the department. The fact that in the present case the statements of the Officers of the applicant company had been made use of in interpreting the entries in the seized records and allegations raised. When the request was made for cross-examining them to elicit full information to put ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
