TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 167
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct to all just exceptions. The applications are disposed of. W.P.(C) 4131/2019, W.P.(C) 4132/2019 & W.P.(C) 4151/2019 1. The narrow ground on which the petitioners question the common order of the Additional Commissioner of Customs, is that they were denied the permission to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements, recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, were taken into account by the authorities and ultimately, became a part of the Order-in-Original impugned herein. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the sole basis for rejection of the request for cross-examination of witnesses was twofold - (i) the request was made casually and, (ii) that few of the witnesses were interlinked. The Adjudicating Of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se statements have been relied upon in the impugned show cause notice, had tendered their statements voluntarily and the same had been retracted by them. I find that the statements of above Noticees as well as the other Co-Noticees in support of the allegations made in the show cause notice, were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, which is a 'Judicial Proceedings' within the meaning of Section 193 and Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. I further find that none of the persons concerned retracted their statements during the course of investigations or subsequent to completion thereof. Therefore, the cross-examination of the Noticees/Co-Noticees or the persons concerned was not at all warranted in the instant case. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp;I also find in the matter of Jagdish Shankar Trivedi Versus Commissioner of Customs, Kanpur- 2006(194) ELT 290 (Tri-Del), the Principal Bench of the Hon'ble CESTAT, New Delhi relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Surjeet Singh Chhabra case vs UOI reported in 1997 (89) ELT 646 (SC), has held that admission made by an assessee binds him and, therefore, failure to give him the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was not violative of principles of natural justice. It was specifically held that "principles of natural justice do not require that in matters like this, persons who had given information should be allowed to be cross-examined by the co-notices on the statements made before the Customs authorities. If cross....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he court held, that a proceedee was not entitled to cross-examination of any of the witnesses under Section 124 of the said Act which lays down the extent of applicability of the principles of natural justice and under which lays down the extent of applicability of the principles of natural justice and under which a proceedee was not entitiled to cross-examine any witness (para 11). Thus in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanungo & Co., Ashutosh Ghosh and of the Calcutta High Court, in the above two decisions, it is abundantly clear that a noticee can not claim a right to cross-examine under Section 124 of the said Act." I further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Surjeet Singh Chhabra vs Unio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as that, if information is received by the statutory authorities, which triggers an inquiry and culminates in adjudicating proceedings, there is nothing in law to compel the authorities to involve the informant, (or the person providing the information), in the judicial proceedings so as to warrant her or his cross-examination. This, however, does not imply that if an individual is involved in the proceeding, which results in an adverse order against a third party, (and who is asked to join the proceedings, or whose statement is used) the third party is precluded from seeking cross-examination of the informant, if the latter's statements were recorded or were to be considered in the proceedings as material evidence. This Court notices in th....