1991 (8) TMI 208 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules denial of cross-examination violates natural justice. Appellant granted relief.

SWAIKA VANASPATI PRODUCTS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, ruling that the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine officers during the adjudication process ... Stay/Dispensation of predeposit of duty and penalty Issues: Denial of natural justice in the adjudication process, right to cross-examination, waiver of legal rights, prejudiced impact on appellants, necessity of cross-examination for fair play and justice.In this case, the main issue revolved around the denial of natural justice during the adjudication process. The appellant contended that there was a patent violation of natural justice as they were not given the opportunity to cross-examine their officers whose statements were relied upon in the case. The appellant repeatedly requested for the chance to cross-examine these officers to properly explain the matter, but their requests were denied by the Collector. The appellant argued that the denial of this opportunity seriously affected their defense and that the Collector displayed a closed mind by stating that cross-examination would not improve the results. The appellant also referenced a previous Tribunal judgment where a similar order was set aside due to the denial of natural justice.The Departmental Representative opposed the appellant's arguments, stating that the appellant had reportedly dropped their request for cross-examination during the hearing and therefore could not claim denial of natural justice. The representative argued that the appellant could have produced their officers for examination as witnesses and that there was no denial of natural justice in this case.The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and found that the appellant's request for cross-examination was reasonable. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not waived their right to cross-examination, and the Collector's observation that cross-examination would not serve any useful purpose indicated a predetermined approach. The Tribunal referenced a previous decision where it was held that serious prejudice could result if the appellants were not given the opportunity to cross-examine relevant persons. The Tribunal concluded that the denial of cross-examination had left the appellant with a justifiable grievance of not being able to properly submit their defense.As a result, the Tribunal allowed the Stay Petition, waiving the predeposit of penalty and duty. With the consent of both parties, the Tribunal proceeded to hear the appeal and ultimately allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication in accordance with the law and the principles of natural justice.