TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this material and which was placed by it before the department was in a position to defend itself effectively. It had in its possession several documents including from the suppliers abroad. It is in these circumstances and where several opportunities were given to the assessee/appellant to make submissions with regard to the findings of the report of the expert panel that refusal to permit cross examination of some of the panel members was justified. It will not be correct to hold that irrespective of the facts and circumstances and in all inquiries, the right of cross examination can be asserted. Further, as held above which rule or principle of natural justice must be applied and followed depends upon several factors and as enumerated above. Even if there is denial of the request to cross examine the witnesses in a inquiry, without anything more, by such denial alone, it will not be enough to conclude that principles of natural justice have been violated. - Decided against assessee. - Customs Appeal No. 43 of 2013 with Notice of Motion (L) No. 1064 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2014 - S.C. Dharmadhikari and B.P. Colabawalla, JJ. Shri S.N. Kantawala i/b. Brijesh Pathak, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he proprietor of CHA firm. A penalty of ₹ 1 lakh was imposed on Shri Mani Shankar Singh Asst. Chief Engineer of the appellant firm. It is against this order, the appellants are before us. 3. Mr. Kantawala appearing in support of this Appeal firstly submits that in compliance with the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority duty amount has been deposited. The only sum which has not been deposited is redemption fine and amount of penalty. 4. It is then submitted that grave and serious prejudice has been caused on account of the approach of the Tribunal and prior to that of the Adjudicating Authority. The report of experts, rather a panel which was set up, was placed before these authorities. The request of the Appellant was to permit cross examination of the members of the expert panel so as to demonstrate that the findings in the report are erroneous. This request, which was reasonable, has been denied. In these circumstances, the entire procedure was faulty, erroneous in law and has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. Therefore, breach of principles of natural justice and equally the refusal of the authorities to abide by the law laid down by this Court in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limit of 6% as stipulated in note (2) of Chapter 19 of the Tariff Act. That is how the department formed prima facie opinion that the subject product needed to be classified under a separate Chapter subheading and not under chapter or subheading relied upon by M/s. Kellogg. 8. That is how the show cause notice was issued and adjudication was held. During the adjudication, the petitioner/assessee sought copies of the test report so as to enable them to understand the findings therein and thereafter also requested for cross examination of the Deputy Chief Chemist. 9. It is in these circumstances that this Court held that denial of such a request which in the opinion of this Court was reasonable, amounted to serious violation of the principles of natural justice. It is in that regard the observations relied upon by Shri Kantawala have been made. 10. We must, at the outset and from a perusal of the Division Bench Judgment itself, note that initially the Hon ble Supreme Court in series of judgments including the judgment delivered in the case of S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and Ors. reported in AIR 1981 SC Page 136 held that breach of principles of natural justice by itself amounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al was not approached and a Writ Petition was filed complaining about breach of principles of natural justice at the hands of the Adjudicating Authority. The argument was that there was no order passed on the request of the Petitioner for cross-examination of certain witnesses. The Division Bench in the peculiar facts, therefore, held that ,such an order was required and should have been passed, thereafter, the matter could have been dealt with on other issues on merits. We do not find that any principle of law or a general rule has been laid down. On the other hand, the matter has been decided in the light of the facts. Similarly, in the case of Basudev Garg v. Commissioner of Customs (supra), the Delhi High Court found that imported Ball Bearings of Chinese origin were showed by the Assessee as having been imported from Sri Lanka in order to evade anti-dumping duty. Show cause notices were issued to the Appellants before the Delhi High Court and which contained reference to various statements. One of the statement was of Mr. Anil Goel. The Appellants made request to summon the persons who made the statement including the Customs Officers for cross examination. That is how, the al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Vice-President of the assessee, the suppliers were also summoned, their statements were recorded and show cause notices were issued and adjudicated. 14. It is in these circumstances and when the dispute was raised with regard to the other material and contents of these certificates relied upon that it was decided by the department to form an expert panel. That also included the representatives of the assessee. The opinion of the expert panel, after examination, was taken on record. After conclusion of this, show cause notice was issued and impugned order was passed. 15. In these circumstances, we are unable to accept the argument of Mr. Kantawala that any prejudice has been caused to the assessee by not permitting the panel members to be cross-examined. The Tribunal did not commit any error in holding that right to defend the proceedings which are inherent in such adjudication are in no way prejudiced, leave alone the conclusion of the department. The assessee could have in the teeth of this material and which was placed by it before the department was in a position to defend itself effectively. It had in its possession several documents including from the suppliers abroa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a commonsense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form. 14. The expressions natural justice and legal justice do not present a watertight classification. It is the substance of justice which is to be secured by both, and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication. It supplies the omissions of a formulated law. As Lord Buckmaster said, no form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant s defence. 15. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the statute under which the enquiry is held. The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away. Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice. The expression civil consequences encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella comes everything that affects a citizen in his civil life. 21. How then have the principles of natural justice been interpreted in the courts and within what limits are they to be confined? Over the years by a process of judicial interpretation two rules have been evolved as representing the principles of natural justice in judicial process, including therein quasi-judicial and administrative process. They constitute the basic elements of a fair hearing, having their roots in the innate sense ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice is likely to result in revival of another order which is in itself illegal as in Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P. [AIR 1966 SC 828 : (1966) 2 SCR 1721 it is not necessary to quash the order merely because of violation of principles of natural justice. 22. In M.C. Mehta [(1999) 6 SCC 237] it was pointed out that at one time, it was held in Ridge v. Baldwin [1964 AC 40 : (1963) 2 All ER 66 (HL)] that breach of principles of natural justice was in itself treated as prejudice and that no other de facto prejudice needed to be proved. But, since then the rigour of the rule has been relaxed not only in England but also in our country. In S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [(1980) 4 SCC 379] Chinnappa Reddy, J. followed Ridge v. Baldwin [1964 AC 40 : (1963) 2 All ER 66 (HL)] and set aside the order of supersession of the New Delhi Metropolitan Committee rejecting the argument that there was no prejudice though notice was not given. The proceedings were quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. But even in that case certain exceptions were laid down to which we shall presently refer. 23. Chinnappa Reddy, J. in S.L. Kapoor case [(1980) 4 SCC 379] laid down ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it-jacket formula. Which principles of natural justice or which facet of the same is applicable, depends upon the nature of the lis, the statute under which an adjudication is undertaken and several other factors. This has been now firmly established in the decision of Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 311 : AIR 2004 SC 2227. In that case, in the SCC report, this is what is held :- 49. In N.K. Prasada v. Govt. of India [(2004) 6 SCC 299] this Court observed: (SCC p. 308, paras 24-25) 24. The principles of natural justice, it is well settled, cannot be put into a straitjacket formula. Its application will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is also well settled that if a party after having proper notice chose not to appear, he at a later stage cannot be permitted to say that he had not been given a fair opportunity of hearing. The question had been considered by a Bench of this Court in Sohan Lal Gupta v. Asha Devi Gupta [(2003) 7 SCC 492] of which two of us (V.N. Khare, C.J. and Sinha, J.) are parties wherein upon noticing a large number of decisions it was held: (SCC p. 506, para 29) 29. The principles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
