2016 (7) TMI 870

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s have questioned the order in Original passed by the Joint Commissioner, dated 29.12.2015. For the purpose of disposal of all these writ petitions, W.P.No.12520 of 2016 is taken up to lead the case. 3. The short issue which falls for consideration is as to whether the respondent/adjudicating officer could have proceeded to conclude the proceedings and pass an order in Original, without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine two of the persons from whom statements have been recorded, which appears to be the basis for issuance of the show cause notice dated 02.01.2007. In fact, earlier, the show cause notice was adjudicated and order in Original was passed on 31.3.2008. This order was put to challenge by the petition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsideration. On such remand, the matter has been taken up by the Joint Commissioner, Salem, who has adjudicated the matter. 5. The only issue which falls for consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether the authority could have proceeded to adjudicate the matter and pass the final order, without acceding to the request made by the petitioners for cross-examination of two of the persons, from whom statements were recorded by the department, namely, V.Kumaraswamy and S.Padmanabhan. These persons are said to be job workers, who have given statements with regard to the amount charged by them for carrying on the job work. The petitioners' specific request was to cross-examine these two persons. 6. From paragraph No.8 of the i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... thereafter, the adjudicating officer ought to have proceeded with the adjudication. But, from a reading of the impugned proceedings, it is seen that the adjudicating authority has not eschewed the statements given by those two persons and in fact, there is reference to the statements recorded from them even in paragraph No.12 of the impugned proceedings. 9. The other angle from which the matter can be approached is that if those two persons are not available for cross-examination, then their statements could not have been relied upon and the petitioners should have been afforded an opportunity to contest the matter, without reference to those two statements. This exercise also has not been done by the adjudicating authority while passin....