TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 781
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had imported 76 packages, namely, 3800 packets of Coated Gummed Paper at USD 11400.00 from M/s.Fancyco, China, vide Invoice No.FY122244, dated 19.11.2012 and thereafter, they have filed Bill of Entry No.8711998, dated 10.12.2012, for clearance of goods. Subsequently, an Officer from the respondent department assessed the duty at Rs. 1,81,532/-, which was remitted by the petitioner on 10.12.2012. However, the petitioner was informed that the goods have been detained by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Officer. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation dated 12.01.2013 requesting the Assistant Director of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n accordance with the description detailed in column No.16 of the Worksheet to the show cause notice. On receipt of the same, the petitioner's counsel also submitted letters dated 24.09.2013, 25.02.2014 and 24.05.2014 seeking to defer the date of personal hearing for cross-examination of 8 persons, namely, Praveen Kumar Jain of Mayur Paper Products, Mr.Vinod Kumar of Vardhman Papers, Mr.M.Siddharth Kumar of M/s.ML Oswal Enterprises, Mr.Mangi Lal of Muthua Papers, Mr.Mahendra Bafna of Mahendra Paer, Mr.Vikram Banda of Prakash Paper, Mr.Ramesh Sudha of Tanot Papers and Mr.Raja of Mariappan Papers. However, the request of the petitioner to cross-examine the above said eight persons was not granted. Therefore, he contended, such approach of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght for setting aside the impugned order. 6. Per contra, learned Senior standing counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that cross-examination of the above said eight persons by the petitioner is unnecessary, as this would result in avoidable delay and would not serve the purpose of justice. It is further submitted that the act of mis-declaration, undervaluation, suppression of facts and conspiracy has been established beyond reasonable doubt by other evidences, therefore, the petitioner has no locus-standi to corss-examine the above said eight persons. 7. This Court is unable to accept the above said contention of the counsel for the respondent. Indeed, on denial of cross-examination of the above said eight persons, counsel f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hether such application is being granted or refused before final order was passed. When the petitioners prayed for cross examination and reasonably expected that the same would be granted, they cannot be expected to participate in the adjudicating proceedings upto the final stage. In other words, without dealing with and disposing of the petitioners application for cross examination, the adjudicating authority could not have finally adjudicated the issues. If he was of the opinion that the request for cross examination was not tenable, by giving reasons, he could have rejected it. We wonder what would have happened, if he was inclined to accept such a request. In such a situation, he himself could not have finally disposed of the show cause....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s: "Cross-examination is one part of the principles of natural justice: 23. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of M.P. v. Chintaman Sadashiva Vaishampayan, AIR 1961 SC 1623, held that the rules of natural justice, require that a party must be given the opportunity to adduce all relevant evidence upon which he relies, and further that, the evidence of the opposite party should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party. Not providing the said opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, would violate the principles of natural justice." A mere reading of the above said proposition clearly shows that the rules of natural justice require that a party....