TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 817
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rded and relied upon while arriving at the final conclusion about the duty liability of the appellants. 3. Pursuant to search and seizure carried out by the Central Excise authorities, various documents and records came to be seized from the manufacturer/appellants herein and some of the transporters as well as purchasers of the product. Consequent to the investigation carried out, a show cause notice came to be issued on 13th April, 2007 to the appellants requiring to show cause as to why the duty should not be demanded from them in relation to unaccounted products manufactured by the manufacturer/appellants. As far as the transporters and the purchasers are concerned, they were required to show cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed for having connived with the manufacturer/appellants in the process of transporting such unaccounted goods. 4. It appears that some of the noticees filed their replies, whereas some of the appellants insisted for cross-examination of the persons whose statements were recorded and relied upon by the Department, even before filing their replies. Their request did not find favour with the lower authority and the matter procee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mencement of the proceedings, had been of the nature of uncooperative attitude and, therefore, bearing in mind the mandate of the statutory provisions under the said Act, the Commissioner was left with no alternative then to pass the said order and to communicate the same in the form of a letter to the party so that the disposal of the proceedings was expedited. Referring to the letter dated 24th September, 2008 addressed by the party, he also submitted that, the same discloses that the appellants had even denied all the contents of the show cause notice and thereupon had stated that they wanted to cross-examine the persons whose statements were recorded in order to test the veracity of their statements. Further, drawing our attention to para 6 of the said order, he submitted that, the contents thereof clearly disclose non-cooperative attitude on the part of the appellants for speedy disposal of the proceedings. Relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Debu Saha v. Collector of Customs, reported in 1990 (48) E.L.T. 302, he submitted that, in any case, merely because the statements have been relied upon as corroborative piece of evidence and not that findings are sol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y faced by the authority itself or for the reasons beyond the control of the authority. Besides, the limit of three times adjournment is to be understood in the facts and circumstances of each case. In a given case, the adjudicating authority may not be held to be totally helpless in adjourning the matter even for the fourth time, if the circumstances so demand and leave no other choice. Undoubtedly, such adjournment will have to be for the valid and justifiable reasons to be recorded in writing by the concerned authority. 9. As regards the second point pertaining to the contention relating to the legal bias alleged to have revealed from letter dated 26th September, 2008, it would be appropriate to reproduce the contents of the said letter. The same read as under : "1. Please refer to your letter dated 24-9-2008 requesting for cross-examination of some persons. In this regard, it is to inform you that the case of the Department is based on documentary evidences secured from various sources and not on the testimony of the persons to whom you desire to cross-examine. Hence, you may defend your case on the date of next hearing fixed on 6-10-2008. 2. Further, it is al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp;It may be noted that the case under reference is finally posted for hearing on 6-10-2008. No further adjournment shall be granted in view of the restriction imposed under proviso to Section 33A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and in case no reply is received or you do not appear for hearing on 6-10-2008, the case will be decided ex-parte on the basis of available record." 10. Undoubtedly, the said letter was in response to the party's letter dated 24th September, 2008. The contents thereof read as under : "Please refer to aforesaid show cause notice wherein personal hearing has been fixed before your goodself. 1. Most respectfully, at the outset the Noticee deny allegations/contentions made in the show cause notice. 2. In show cause notice statements of various persons has been relied upon in support of the allegations/contentions of the show cause notice. 3. In order to verify the actual position and the veracity of their statements, we request you to allow the cross-examination of following persons in context of issues mentioned against their names : i.&nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icating authority which took place prior to the 26th September, 2008. In fact, after receipt of the show cause notice dated 30th April, 2007, the appellants had entered into correspondence with the concerned authorities requesting them to furnish copies of certain documents as well as for return of the un-relied documents. However, such documents were received as late as 25th April, 2008. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for hearing on 25th July, 2008, intimation, in respect of which, was given to the parties under letter dated 23rd June, 2008. On 25th July, 2008, the advocate for the appellants addressed a letter to the Commissioner that on account of voluminous documents, the manufacturer/appellants could not prepare the reply and it would take at least six months to prepare the same and on that ground sought adjournment of the hearing. The same was granted and the matter was posted for hearing on 24th September, 2008. On 24th September, 2008, the above quoted letter was forwarded by the advocate for the appellants to the Commissioner. The same was replied by the Commissioner under letter dated 26th September, 2008 while informing that hearing was fixed on 6th October, 2008. On t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellants had not filed their reply to the show cause notice. But in no case he could have arrived at the finding that the appellants are not entitled to cross-examine the witnesses in the matter. Such a finding could have been given only after hearing the appellants and in the absence of defence of the appellants being disclosed on record, it cannot be said that the appellants had fair opportunity of placing on record their case and justification for cross-examination of those deponents. The decision, therefore, clearly disclose the same to be pre-mature in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. While rejecting the request for cross-examination, the Commissioner has specifically observed thus : "In this regard, it is to inform you that the case of the Department is based on documentary evidences secured from various sources and not on the testimony of the persons to whom you desire to cross-examine." In other words, the Commissioner had pre-judged the issue in relation to the evidence in support of the allegations against the appellants even without knowing the defence of the appellants to the charges made against them. This indeed discloses legal bias on the pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2008 reveals preconceived opinion on the material issue in the matter which clearly reveals bias mind. 17. The contention on the part of the respondents that the quasi-judicial authority can rely upon the information gathered through their own sources without even being made available to the assessee cannot be accepted. The decision of the Tribunal in that regard, sought to be relied upon, is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the case of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 150, had clearly held that "Quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably". It was further held that, "If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice, one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries. Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrativ....