9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 2067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was held that The aforesaid discussion makes it evident that, not only should the opportunity of cross-examination be made available, but it should be one of effective cross-examination, so as to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice. In the absence of such an opportunity, it cannot be held that the matter has been decided in accordance with law, as cross-examination is an integral part and parcel of the principles of natural justice. Thus, it has been held by Hon ble the Supreme Court that whenever the Union of India is relying upon the statements of the witnesses in which show-cause notice issued under the Central Excise Act and when the cross-examination is demanded by the assesse, the same ought to be given. In the present case, despite several requests by the petitioner vide his letters dated 10th December, 2010 (Annexure-2), 21st December, 2012 (Annexure-5), 30th September, 2013(Annexure-10 and 10/1), 25th February, 2015 (Annexure-13 and 13/1), 23rd March, 2015 (Annexure-16) and 26th May, 2016 (Annexure-25), the respondents have not granted cross-examination of the witnesses whose names have been referred in paragraph 17 of the memo of the writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en referred in para 17 of the memo of the writ petition, the same was never afforded by the respondents. 3. It has been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Arya Abhushan Bhandar Versus Union of India reported in 2002 (143) ELT 25 (SC) at paragraph no.1 which reads as under:- An issue raised by the appellants was that the search was conducted both in their shop and in their house and that the search warrant was limited to the shop. The Panchas to the search were, therefore, material witnesses in this behalf. That they were not produced for cross-examination, though asked for, is not disputed. There has, therefore, in our view, clearly been a breach of natural justice. On this count alone, the order of the High Court must be set aside. We are unimpressed by the argument that no prejudice was caused to the appellants by reason of the non-production of the Panchas which, it would appear, was that the High Court seemed to think. (emphasis supplied) 4. It has been also held by Hon ble the Supreme Court in the case of Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo reported in (1988) 4 SCC 619 in paragraph no.18 which reads as under:- 18. We agree that full effect shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iecco Lawrie Ltd. v. State of W.B. and State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha.) 25. In Lakshman Exports Ltd. v. CCE, this Court, while dealing with a case under the Central Excise Act, 1944, considered a similar issue i.e. permission with respect to the cross-examination of a witness. In the said case, the assessee had specifically asked to be allowed to cross-examine the representatives of the firms concerned, to establish that the goods in question had been accounted for in their books of accounts, and that excise duty had been paid. The Court held that such a request could not be turned down, as the denial of the right to cross-examine, would amount to a denial of the right to be heard i.e. audi alteram partem. 26. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia, this Court considered a case under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and held as follows: (SCC p. 295, para 45) 45. If some facts are to be proved by the landlord, indisputably the occupant should get an opportunity to cross-examine. The witness who intends to prove the said fact has the right to cross-examine the witness. This may not be provided by under the statute, but i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sses produced against him. The object of supplying statements is that, the government servant will be able to refer to the previous statements of the witnesses proposed to be examined against him. Unless the said statements are provided to the government servant, he will not be able to conduct an effective and useful cross-examination. 29. In Rajiv Arora v. Union of India this Court held: (SCC p. 310, paras 13-14) 13. Effective cross-examination could have been done as regards the correctness or otherwise of the report, if the contents of them were proved. The principles analogous to the provisions of the Evidence Act as also the principles of natural justice demand that the maker of the report should be examined, save and except in cases where the facts are admitted or the witnesses are not available for cross-examination or similar situation. 14. The High Court in its impugned judgment proceeded to consider the issue on a technical plea, namely, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant by such non-examination. If the basic principles of law have not been complied with or there has been a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, the High Court shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
