2025 (9) TMI 1225

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....short question involved and with the consent of the learned counsel on both sides, the appeal is taken up for final hearing and is accordingly disposed of. 2. Heard Sri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue, and Sri Krishna Prathap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-assessees. 3. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against Final Order No. A/20261-20266/2022 dated 01.08.2022, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bengaluru ['CESTAT']. 4. The brief facts, in short, are that the respondent-assessees are engaged in the business of trading in imported sanitary ware, furniture, and light fittings through M/s. J.V. Impex, a proprietorship concern of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....osecutions for offences under the Act. It is further submitted that, since the panch witnesses have not given any statement, there is no occasion for their cross-examination. In the absence of any recorded statement, the question of cross-examination does not arise. Learned counsel also contends that the provisions of the Evidence Act are not strictly applicable to proceedings under the Act and, in any event, cross-examination is not a vested right. 6. Sri Krishna Prathap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-assessees, submits that though cross-examination is not a vested right, once the statement of a witness is relied upon against the assessee, the assessee is entitled to cross-examine such witness. It is further submitted that seve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e adjudicating authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation 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 asse....