TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 568
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 1 is a partnership firm. Petitioner No. 2 is the partner of the firm. The petitioner firm is engaged in the manufacturing of Stainless Steel pipes having its manufacturing unit at Kalol. The Excise Authorities had issued a show cause notice dated 1-1-2015 alleging large scale violation of the legal provisions for evasion of duty. This lengthy show cause notice relies on several statements of witnesses recorded by the department during the course of investigation. The petitioner during the course of adjudication, applied to the Adjudicating Authority for cross-examination of these witnesses. Such request came to be dismissed by the authority by the impugned order. He referred to various decisions of the Tribunal and observed that cross-exa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rdinary is pointed out showing dilatory tactics on the part of the noticee or some such justifiable reasons, Courts have consistently held that statements of the witnesses could not be relied upon unless cross-examination if asked for is allowed. In this context, we may refer to the following judgments : I. In case of Mulchand M. Zaveri v. Union of India reported in 2016 (339) E.L.T. 364 (Guj.), Division Bench of this Court, in the context of non-granting of cross-examination of witnesses, held and observed as under : "6. The only reasons given by the adjudicating authority for denying such cross-examination are that the witnesses have not retracted their statements. These statements made by the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judicating authority had while recording adverse findings against the respondents placed reliance upon the testimony of witnesses who were not offered for cross-examination. It is in these circumstances, that the Tribunal by placing reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sounds N Images (supra) and in the case of Shalimar Rubber Industries (supra) for the proposition that oral testimony of a witness whom the assessee was not permitted to cross-examine cannot be placed reliance upon by the adjudicating authority for establishing the charge against the assessee, held that the order passed by the adjudicating authority was in breach of the principles of natural justice. ... ... 14. The contention advanced by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he prerogative writ of certiorari to correct the error of the court or the Tribunal at first instance, even if an appeal to another inferior court or Tribunal was available and recourse was not had to it. In C.I.T. v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (supra) on which reliance had been placed by the Learned Counsel for the respondent, the Supreme Court held thus :- "15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority he has specifically mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the assessee. However, no such opportunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, we find that rejection of th....