C.C. Vs. SHRI AMRUTBHAI VASUDEVBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned Order -in -Appeal dated 10.8.1995 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority after setting aside the Order -in -Original for de novo proceeding after allowing cross -examination of the material witnesses to the respondents.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned order shows that the adjudicating authority imposed penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and 74 under Gold (Control) Act, 12968 on the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside that order on the ground that there was violation of rules of natural justice as the cross -examination of material witnesses was not furnished to the respondents by the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, he has remanded the case to him for fresh decision.

(3.) THE only ground put forth before me by ld. DR is that the respondents did not ask for the cross -examination of the witnessess during the adjudication proceeding and as such the same could not be allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). But I find from the records that the respondents sought cross -examination of the witnessess but the adjudicating authority instead of acceding to the request rather called upon them to disclose reasons for seeking cross -examination of the witnesses. Being not satisfied with the respondents explanation, the adjudicating authority disallowed cross -examination. Commr. (Appeals) has right set aside the Order -in -Original on the (SIC) violation of rules of natural justice. The respondents had every right to ask for cross -examination those witnesses whose statement, were to be used against them. Commr. (Appeals) in the impugned order has specified and limited the cross -examination, to those witnessess which are still in service. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Commr. (Appeals) as such, the same is upheld.