9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 2067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Order-In-Original passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi dated 28th April, 2017 which is at Annexure-33 to the memo of this writ petition. There is also challenge to corrigendum to this order dated 16th June, 2017 which is also a part and parcel of the Annexure-33 to the memo of this writ petition mainly on the ground that in a show-cause notice issued by the respondents, the Department is relying upon the statements of several witnesses, but, the cross-examination of those witnesses have never been provided despite several requests by this petitioner. 2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, it appears that the respondents carried out a search of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learly been a breach of natural justice. On this count alone, the order of the High Court must be set aside. We are unimpressed by the argument that no prejudice was caused to the appellants by reason of the non-production of the Panchas which, it would appear, was that the High Court seemed to think." (emphasis supplied) 4. It has been also held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo reported in (1988) 4 SCC 619 in paragraph no.18 which reads as under:- "18. We agree that full effect should be given to the words that defence against ejectment is struck off. But does this really deprive the defendant-tenant of further participation in the case in any manner? While it is true that, in a broad sens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of M.P. v. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan held that the rules of natural justice require that a party must be given the opportunity to adduce all relevant evidence upon which he relies, and further that, the evidence of the opposite party should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party. Not providing the said opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, would violate the principles of natural justice. (See also Union of India v. T.R. Varma, Meenglas Tea Estate v. Workmen, Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia, Rachpal Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, Biecco Lawrie Ltd. v. State of W.B. and State of U.P. v. Saroj Kum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the principles of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity of cross-examination, it must be established that some prejudice has been caused to the appellant by the procedure followed. A party, who does not want to controvert the veracity of the evidence on record, or of the testimony gathered behind his back, cannot expect to succeed in any subsequent grievance raised by him, stating that no opportunity of cross-examination was provided to him, specially when the same was not requested, and there was no dispute regarding the veracity of the statement. (See also Union of India v. P.K. Roy and Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. State of Mysore.) In Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd. v. Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill, this Court held: ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are provided to the government servant, he will not be able to conduct an effective and useful cross-examination. 29. In Rajiv Arora v. Union of India this Court held: (SCC p. 310, paras 13-14) "13. ... Effective cross-examination could have been done as regards the correctness or otherwise of the report, if the contents of them were proved. The principles analogous to the provisions of the Evidence Act as also the principles of natural justice demand that the maker of the report should be examined, save and except in cases where the facts are admitted or the witnesses are not available for cross-examination or similar situation. ... 14. The High Court in its impugned judgment proceeded to consider the issue on a technical plea, namel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been referred in paragraph 17 of the memo of the writ petition. Thus, there is violation of principle of natural justice by the Department. Thus, cross-examination of the witnesses whose names have been referred in paragraph 17 ought to have been given by the respondents. 8. Thus, the Order-In-Original has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. We, therefore, quash and set aside the order passed by Commissioner Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi dated 28th April, 2017 (Annexure-33) as well as we hereby quash and set aside the corrigendum of Order-In-Original dated 16th June, 2017 (Annexure-33). 9. We direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses whose names are referred in paragraph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
