Tribunal decision: Appeal partly allowed, remanded for cross-examination. Some statements deemed confessions not needing cross-examination.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, remanding the case for cross-examination consent from certain witnesses. It upheld the denial of cross-examination for others, deeming their statements confessions not necessitating cross-examination under Section 9D or natural justice principles. The Tribunal found no violation in denying cross-examination of Directors, considering their statements as confessions exempt from compulsory self-incrimination.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of cross-examination of witnesses.
2. Applicability of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944/Section 138 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Principles of natural justice.
4. Admissibility of confessional statements.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Cross-Examination of Witnesses:
The appellant contested the denial of cross-examination of four individuals whose statements were recorded during the investigation. The appellant argued that cross-examination is essential for the statements to be relevant and admissible as evidence, as per principles of natural justice and Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which is analogous to Section 138 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Department countered that cross-examination is not required in every case, especially when the statements are confessions made to Customs officers, who are not police officers.

2. Applicability of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944/Section 138 of the Customs Act, 1962:
Section 9D specifies the conditions under which statements made before a Gazette Officer can be treated as relevant for proving the truth of their contents. The Tribunal noted that for a statement to be admissible, the person who made the statement must be examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority, which then decides whether the statement should be admitted in the interest of justice. This process allows the assessee to cross-examine the witness, as per Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1932.

3. Principles of Natural Justice:
The Tribunal referred to various case laws to determine whether the denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice. It concluded that formal cross-examination is not always required by natural justice principles. As long as the accused has a reasonable opportunity to comment on the evidence against them, the requirements of natural justice are met. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Kanungo & Co. Vs. Collector of Customs, which held that natural justice does not mandate formal cross-examination in every case.

4. Admissibility of Confessional Statements:
The Tribunal distinguished between statements simpliciter and confessional statements. It held that the statements of the Directors, being confessions, are admissible as evidence without the need for cross-examination under Section 9D. The Tribunal emphasized that the statements of the Directors, who are also co-noticees, are confessions on behalf of the appellant company and are admissible because they were made to Customs officers, not police officers. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Punjab Vs. Barkat Ram, which upheld the admissibility of voluntary confessions made to Customs officers.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the adjudicating authority to seek the consent of Ms. N. Rashmi and Shri Amit Mallik for their cross-examination. However, it upheld the denial of cross-examination of Shri Vineet Saluja and Shri Pradeep Sharma, ruling that their statements are confessions and do not require cross-examination under Section 9D or principles of natural justice. The Tribunal concluded that there was no violation of natural justice in denying the cross-examination of the Directors, as their statements were confessions and the accused cannot be compelled to incriminate themselves.

---