TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 372
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....three questions stated to be substantial questions of law for determination by this Court :- "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT was justified in remanding the matter for de novo adjudication which was affirmed erroneously by the Tribunal and tagging the appeals along with other appeals that were decided by dealing with only stay applications? 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT was right in concluding that principles of natural justice have not been followed in the Order-in-Original although Order-in-Original has elaborated as to why cross-examination of witnesses and co-accused could not be granted? 3. Whether, in the facts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by remanding the matter to the Commissioner, Central Excise, Daman, who was the adjudicating authority in the collateral proceeding, instead of Joint Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs who was the adjudicating authority in the present case. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 4. Assailing the impugned order of the Tribunal, Ms. Amee Yajnik, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant reiterated the reasoning adopted by the adjudicating authority. It was submitted that when the adjudicating authority had given elaborate reasons as to why cross-examination of the witnesses and co-accused should not be granted, the Tribunal was not justified in concluding that the principles of natural justice h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was the parent show-cause notice. The show-cause notice dated 24-4-2006 came to be adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Daman, which was carried in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 1-8-2008 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority, namely, the Commissioner, Central Excise, Daman, for fresh adjudication after permitting cross-examination of the witnesses. In relation to the show-cause notice pertaining to the present case, Order-In-Original came to be made on 31-12-2007 by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Daman. Against the said order, the respondent assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Before the Commissioner (Appeals), on behalf of the respondent it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation by the Commissioner amounted to violation of the principles of natural justice. The Commissioner (Appeals) found as a matter of fact that in the order-in-original which was subject matter of appeal before him, the cross examination of the same set of witnesses had been denied by the adjudicating authority. Following the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 30-9-2008 held that denial of cross examination of the witnesses amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority, being Joint Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Daman for fresh decision after permitting the cross-examination of the witnesses. Against the said order, revenue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in these circumstances that the respondent had sought for cross examination of the witnesses on whose statements the appellant wanted to rely against the respondent; as well as the panchas and officers who had drawn the panchnama and conducted the search proceedings. In the circumstances, the action of adjudicating authority in refusing to allow the respondent to cross-examine the said witnesses would seriously prejudice the defence of the respondent and as such is undoubtedly violative of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, a perusal of the grounds for denying the respondent the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses makes it apparent that the adjudicating authority has cursorily brushed aside the request on irrelevant grounds....