2014 (6) TMI 486 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal orders remand for cross-examination, detailed reply, personal hearing, emphasizing natural justice principles.

M/s Atithi Gokul Automobile Works Versus CCE Ahmedabad-II

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority, directing them to grant cross-examination as requested by ... Waiver of pre-deposit - violation of principles of natural justice - Opportunity not given for cross examination - Held that:- there is a violation of principles of natural justice due to there being no findings on either granting or rejection of the plea for cross-examination of the persons - Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping all the issues open, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh. The adjudicating authority will grant cross-examination of the persons as has been indicated hereinabove in Paragraph 4; and subsequently grant four weeks’ time to the appellant to file a detailed reply. After receiving such detailed reply, the adjudicating authority shall grant an opportunity of personal hearing and come to conclusion on the matter and pass a reasoned order. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Stay Petition for waiver of pre-deposit of duty liability and penalties; Reconsideration of case by adjudicating authority; Denial of cross-examination violating principles of natural justice.Analysis:1. The appellant filed Stay Petitions seeking waiver of duty liability and penalties confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The case was appealed to the High Court, which directed the Tribunal to reconsider the issue on merit upon payment of costs. The appellant complied, and the matter was brought before the Tribunal for reconsideration.2. The appellant's counsel argued that the adjudicating authority should reconsider the case as the appellant had only filed an interim reply to the show cause notice, seeking cross-examination of relevant persons. The counsel highlighted the denial of cross-examination and lack of consideration of the Motor Vehicle Act by the adjudicating authority, citing a previous judgment requiring cross-examination to be granted.3. The Departmental Representative contended that the issue required deeper consideration and suggested the appellant deposit some amount for the appeal process. Regarding cross-examination, it was argued that the appellant failed to establish its relevance for granting the same.4. Upon reviewing submissions and records, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had specifically requested cross-examination of individuals whose statements formed the basis of the demands against them. The adjudicating authority had not addressed this request properly, leading to a violation of natural justice principles as per a relevant High Court judgment.5. The Tribunal, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. The authority was directed to grant cross-examination as requested by the appellant, allow time for a detailed reply, provide a personal hearing, and then pass a reasoned order. Both appeals were allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of upholding principles of natural justice.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both sides, the Tribunal's findings, and the ultimate decision to remand the case for reconsideration while ensuring the principles of natural justice are upheld.