9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (5) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. Heard. 2. The writ petition impugns the order of the 3rd respondent requiring the petitioners to pay Excise Duty in the sum of Rs. 50,33,21,605.25 and a personal penalty of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- within 10 days of the receipt of the order. The principal challenge is that the principles of natural justice have been violated. By a letter dated 6th March 1991 addressed by the petitioners' advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry evidence in defence of their case and a personal hearing. The order stated that the case was not, primarily, based on the oral evidence of the witnesses whose cross-examination had been sought. A considerable number of documents recovered by the Income-Tax and Excise authorities were before the 3rd respondent. Those documents spoke for themselves and could not be silenced by a general denial in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears a travesty of the principles of natural justice. It may be that for good ground the 3rd respondent might have found reason to deny the petitioners the cross-examination of all or some of the 30 witnesses. But it did not and could not follow that the petitioners were to be denied the right to lead oral and documentary evidence in support of their case and a personal hearing in that behalf. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence, oral and documentary. It shall be open to him to conduct the proceedings from day-to-day and we have the undertaking of the petitioners, given to us by counsel, that they shall fully co-operate in this regard. After the examination and cross-examination of witnesses on either side is over, the 3rd respondent shall give to the parties a break of at least a week. He shall then hear arguments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
