9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1087X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mine and in case when the request for such cross examination has been rejected, then it is for the next fact finding authority to go into the same as to whether such denial is justifiable or not. In the instant case, when the petitioner has sought for a request to cross examine, the same came to be denied. Thereafter, the petitioner had also raised this before the Appellate Authority, which was also rejected for the reasons already discussed. As such, the facts involved in the aforesaid case is totally in contra to the issue in the present writ petition and thereby the proposition laid down therein, may not be applicable to the present case. - this Court is of the affirmed view that the petitioner can be granted an opportunity to cross e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore he had sought for permission to cross examine these three witnesses, which came to be denied by the authority. 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents on the other hand would submit that the cross examination of such witnesses is not mandatory in the light of the admissions made by the petitioner himself in his statement recorded before the authority. 5. The second respondent herein, while rejecting the petitioner's request for cross examination of the witnesses had stated that the cross examination of such witnesses is not mandatory, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1983 (13) ELT 1486 in the case of Kanungo Company Vs. Collector Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this aspect of conspiracy was not admitted by the petitioner in his statement recorded before the authorities. The issue as to whether there was a conspiracy or not is now claimed to be established through cross examination of the three witnesses. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Es.Kolkata - II reported in 2015 (324) E.L.T. 641 (S.C), wherein, it was held that when the appellant had contested on the truthfulness of the statements of witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se two persons, namely, Thameem Ansari and Syed Rehman has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. I do not think that the petitioner is justified in raising such objection now, especially, when the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 30.11.2015 denying the request of the petitioner to cross-examine those two persons, has not been challenged by the petitioner and on the other hand, by accepting the said order, the petitioner appeared further and filed additional written submissions, as required under the said order dated 30.11.2015. Even otherwise, the Adjudicating Authority has dealt with in detail as to why such request is rejected by relying on certain case laws. In any event, as the Appellate Authority is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esaid case is totally in contra to the issue in the present writ petition and thereby the proposition laid down therein, may not be applicable to the present case. 13. For all the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the affirmed view that the petitioner can be granted an opportunity to cross examine the three witnesses viz., Maheswaran, Dhamodharan, Abdul Azeez, which exercise should be completed within a stipulated time. Consequently, the Order-in-Appeal No.C.Cus.II No.890/2016, dated 29.09.2016, passed by the first respondent in file No.C4-II/693/O/2016-SEA, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent herein for the limited purpose of permitting the petitioner herein to cross examine the three wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
