AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 462
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oducts are obtained. We are least concerned with that for the simple reason that the petitioners' offices were visited by the Preventive Cell/Wing of the Central Excise, Nashik-I Commissionerate, Nashik. During the course of the search, the Revenue discovered that these are excisable goods. The petitioners manufacture them and, therefore, they are liable to pay excise duty. Relying upon the materials obtained during the search and also the statements of the officers/employees of the petitioners, a show cause notice, dated 16.9.2016 (Exhibit C) was issued and alleging that there is duty evasion in the sum mentioned therein. 3. The petitioners, during the course of the proceedings and pursuant to this show cause notice to which they submitted a detailed reply, addressed a communication dated 23.11.2016 requesting the second respondent to permit cross examination of the persons mentioned in the said communication. These are not the persons related to the petitioners' establishment but they are the employees of the distributors of the petitioners. Their statements have been expressly relied upon in the show cause notice, dated 16.9.2016, to allege that the petitioners are en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upreme Court opined that right of cross examination available under the Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be claimed as of right. The cross examination may be permitted to test the veracity of the statements which have been made. The proceedings were under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short, "FERA"). The Rule 3 of the Adjudication Rules framed under Section 79 of the FERA does not apply to adjudication proceedings. That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court still opined that in a given situation, cross examination may not be permitted to test the veracity of a deposition sought to be issued against a party against whom action is proposed to be taken. In para 18, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:" 18. There is, in our opinion, no merit even in that submission of the learned counsel. It is evident from Rule 3 of the Adjudication Rules framed under Section 79 of the FERA that the rules of procedure do not apply to adjudicating proceedings. That does not, however, mean that in a given situation, cross examination may not be permitted to test the veracity of a deposition sought to be issued against a party against whom action is proposed to be taken. It is only....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner. So there is no need to call panch witnesses for examination and cross examination by the petitioner." The context in which the observations were made are set out while enumerating the facts. The appellant Telestar Travels carries on a travel agency business and is specialised in booking of tickets for crew members working on ships. Most of the shipping companies are based abroad with their representatives located in Mumbai would issue instructions to the company to arrange air passage for the crew from Mumbai and other places in India to particular ports abroad. The company would then take steps to have tickets issued on the basis of such instructions for different destinations. The appellant company's case was that the travel agents in U.K. had of late started offering cheap fares for seaman/crew travelling to join the ships. In order to benefit from such low fare tickets, the shipping companies are said to have desired that the benefit of such low fare tickets be organised for them by Telestar. In order to make that possible, Telestar approached one entity in U.K. for getting such cheap seamen tickets. The arrangement is then set out in details. After the process ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment as if he is a technical person and without knowing the chemical composition and applications. He has deposed that the products BioPower and BioForce are growth stimulants/regulators and that is why his technical capabilities have to be adjudged. His cross examination, therefore, is crucial. Dilip Sampat Dhikale is an undergraduate, yet, he deposes on identical lines and claims that the above products are not ordinary fertilizers. Therefore, in order to ascertain whether he is technically equipped to differentiate between plant growth regulator and plant growth promoter and also to know the difference between ordinary fertilizer and stimulants/regulators that his cross examination is necessary. The third person also agrees with Mr. Gunjal. 13. It is in these circumstances that the cross-examination of these three persons is necessary. Further, these are persons not connected with the petitioners. They are the employees of the distributors. From what we gather and in the proceedings is that these persons were available. The petitioners have pointed out as to how at a personal hearing on 2012017 the petitioners were not aware of the fact that their request for cross examinatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nothing by which the proceedings partake the character of sullying his image and harming his reputation. It is in the course of the proceedings and to falsify his version that answers are elicited. Depending upon the response to the questions the assessee can modulate and modify his stand and arguments. We do not see what inconvenience and lack of comfort is noticed by the adjudicating authority and why he is keen to protect these persons has not been explained to us at all. If the very purpose of the cross examination is to elicit the truth and the adjudication proceedings are nothing but an attempt to vindicate the truth, then, the adjudicating body or authority should not adopt such a position and stand. It is this communication and a lengthy one running into two pages which enables us to interfere in writ jurisdiction with the same. It would be a complete mockery of rule of law and there would be no guarantee of justice if such high level officials and adjudicating authorities hold such a view with regard to compliance with the principles of natural justice. While it is true that they are not codified or embodied in a statute, yet they are fundamental to the rule of law and adm....