9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of principles of natural justice. He argued that earlier the same matter had come up for hearing before this Tribunal and the Tribunal had remanded the matter vide Order No. 2-454/88-D, dated 29-6-1988 in appeal No. E/1154/88-D. He pleaded that the Tribunal had remanded the matter for denial of principles of natural justice as the appellants had asked for the cross-examination of the witnesses on which the Revenue had based its case. Shri Jain argued that in the re-adjudication proceedings no cross-examination has been permitted and the 7 witnesses which are to be examined are Revenue s witnesses and it was the obligation of the Revenue to produce these witnesses. In support of his argument, he referred to a decision of the South Regiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the order passed by the Collector without giving a proper hearing to the appellants, has been vitiated. The Bench, therefore, decided to waive the condition of pre-deposit. Further, because of violation of the principles of natural justice by the Collector, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Collector for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and principles of natural justice. Thereafter, when the cross examination was not granted, the Departmental Representative Shri L.C. Chakraborthy, had stated that the adjudicating authority had agreed for the cross examination of all the witnesses whose statements were relied upon in the Show Cause Notice. We have perused the internal page No. 28 of the Order-in- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cross-examine these witnesses who they themselves could not produce was merely with a view to delaying proceedings. Now I consider principles of natural justice have been fully complied with by giving adequate opportunity to put up their defence. I have gone through the case proceedings and evidence available on record. In spite of opportunities having been given to them, the noticee again have not been able to support their plea that the goods were made by the fabricators. No evidence at all has been produced regarding payments made to fabricators. I, therefore, have no hesitation in upholding my earlier findings. The Tribunal in the case of L. Chandrasekar v. Collector of Customs, 1990 (48) E.L.T. 289 (Tribunal) has held as under :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir play that person who is sought to be proceeded against and penalised in adjudication on the basis of third party statements should be afforded effective opportunity to challenge the correctness of the same as per law by cross-examination if he so desires. If witnesses do not turn up for cross-examination, it is open to the adjudicating authority to proceed with the adjudication without relying on those statements against the appellant given. Non-availability of witness will not be ground to penalise the appellant in law when the appellant is entitled to an opportunity of cross-examination of third parties on whose statements reliance is placed. The proceedings are penal in nature. I also find from the judgment of the Additional First Cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
