https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107538 Refusal to permit cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were relied on against the respondents was treated as a denial of a fair opportunity of defence. The adjudicating authority had declined the request and instead required the respondents to justify why cross-examination was needed, which was held to be inconsistent with natural justice. The Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore justified in setting aside the penalty order and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication, while restricting cross-examination to witnesses still in service. The remand direction and the limited permission for cross-examination were upheld, and the challenge failed. en-us Fri, 09 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:32:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107538 Refusal to permit cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were relied on against the respondents was treated as a denial of a fair opportunity of defence. The adjudicating authority had declined the request and instead required the respondents to justify why cross-examination was needed, which was held to be inconsistent with natural justice. The Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore justified in setting aside the penalty order and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication, while restricting cross-examination to witnesses still in service. The remand direction and the limited permission for cross-examination were upheld, and the challenge failed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 09 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107538