9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r other than the one who had made the adjudication order shall also stand set aside. Otherwise also this direction has become infructuous with the passage of time. The incumbent Collector is directed to decide the matter afresh on the basis of any other material obtained and also placed on record for the purpose duly granting reasonable opportunity to GTC to produce evidence in rebuttal. The Collector is directed to dispose of the matter within four months from the date of appearance of the parties before it. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Collector of Customs, Shillong on 5th May, 2003. No costs. - 7531 of 1995 - - - Dated:- 27-3-2003 - Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and Ashok Bhan, JJ. [Judgment per : Ashok Bhan, J.]. - Union of India has filed this appeal against the order of the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule No. 1940 of 1989 wherein the High Court at the instance of respondent No. 1 has quashed the order passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Shillong. (for short 'the Collector') dated 15th May, 1990 and remanded the case to the Collector for a fresh decision with the following directions : "In view of the above, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor held : "Of the persons who were asked to cross-examination three of them viz. Richard Sailo, Liangtilinga, Lalchungnunga are co-noticees to these proceedings. By issuing them summons as requested by GTC, prejudice is likely to be caused to their defence by compelling their attendance before me. It is an established principle of law that no noticee can be forced to appear before the adjudicator. In fact, I had given the opportunity by letters dated 23rd Oct., 1989 and 17th November, 1989 to M/s. GTC to bring these persons as their own witnesses, if they wished to rely on their testimony. But they have not done so. Being unable to issue summons to these persons, I cannot but reject the request of GTC". 5.The ruling of the Collector declining to issue summons was challenged in the High Court by filing the present Writ Petition before the completion or the adjudication proceedings on the ground of violation of Principles of Natural Justice. 6.The High Court initially on 4th of December, 1989, as an interim measure, stayed all the proceedings in pursuance to the show cause notice. Later on, on 24th January, 1990, the stay granted on 4th of December, 1989 was vacated by the Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ef moulded to the requirements of the subsequent developments which had taken place during the pendency of the writ petition. 9.On merits, the counsel appearing for the GTC before the High Court confined his arguments to the issue of infringement of the violation of Principles of Natural Justice only. The High Court held that denial of opportunity to the GTC to cross-examine Shri Sailo, Lalchunganga and Liangtilinga was nothing short of denial of reasonable opportunity to the Writ Petitioner to defend and establish its version. That the same amounted to the breach of Principles of Natural Justice. On this basis the final adjudication order of Collector was set aside and the matter was remitted back with the direction to resume the proceedings and issue summons to the partners of NET for necessary cross-examination by GTC and thereafter to decide the matter afresh. 10.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Union of India Mr. Jaideep Gupta submitted that no statement was taken from Shri Sailo by the authorities nor did the authorities rely upon any statement of Shri Sailo against GTC. That it was not a case where the evidence had been produced by the appellant in support of its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h November, 1989. Thereafter, on 15th May, 1990, Collector passed his order-in-original quoting extensively from the submissions/statement made before him by Shri Sailo which ran into three pages which itself makes it clear that the Collector had placed strong reliance on the submissions/statement of Shri Sailo. It is specifically recorded in the order that the departmental representatives who appeared before the Collector had also placed strong reliance on the submissions/statement of Shri Sailo. The Collector's order is based largely and substantially if not entirely on the submissions of Shri Sailo. The High Court in paragraphs 27 and 28 of its judgment has also recorded a finding that the Collector in its order had substantially relied upon the submissions made by Shri Sailo. In paragraph 27 it is recorded : "It may also here be noted that the Collector in his adjudication order, made on 15th May, 1990, has substantially relied upon the statement of Shri Sailo which was made to the Collector at a personal hearing." 13.In paragraph 28, it is observed: "The utilisation of Shri Sailo's statement in itself shows that the statement of Mr. Sailo was indeed not only necessary bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
