Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. Vs. Collector, Central Excise, Meerut
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4728 of 1992
Petitioner: Swadeshi Polytex Ltd.
Respondent: Collector, Central Excise, Meerut
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4728 of 1992
Judges: B.N. KIRPAL & D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 20, 2000
Head Note:
PRACTICE and PROCEDURE
Central Excise Act, 1944
Levy of duty – Commodity categorised as waste by manufacturer – Certain statements relied upon to conclude that waste was fibre, used for spinning yarn – No cross-examination- Denial of natural justice. Held that if the Collector is to decided afresh, then opportunity be given to cross
examine those witnesses, whose statements are intended to be relied upon.
(Paras 3,4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The Tribunal in the present case has remanded the matter to the Collector for a fresh decision after coming to the conclusion that there had been a denial of the principles of natural justice. While remanding the case, the Tribunal, however, upheld the finding of the Collector that the appellant herein will have no right to cross-examine the witnesses on whose statement the Collector had relied upon.
2. The point in issue in the present case was whether a commodity, which is categorised as waste by the appellant, can be regarded as good quality fibre by the department and excise duty levied thereon. In order to justify the levy of excise duty, the Collector had referred to and relied upon the statement of some persons who are alleged to have utilised the said waste for the purposes of spinning yarn.
3. The learned Counsel for the
appellant submits that the appellant should be given an opportunity of cross-examining those witnesses in order to determine whether the waste in question could be categorised as fibre for the purposes of levy of excise duty. He does not wish to cross-examine any other witness on those other statements to which reference may have been made.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we consider that this contention is well-founded. When the Collector has to decide afresh, he should, if he intends to rely upon the statement of any such person, give an opportunity of cross-examination to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
1. The Tribunal in the present case has remanded the matter to the Collector for a fresh decision after coming to the conclusion that there had been a denial of the principles of natural justice. While remanding the case, the Tribunal, however, upheld the finding of the Collector that the appellant herein will have no right to cross-examine the witnesses on whose statement the Collector had relied upon.
2. The point in issue in the present case was whether a commodity, which is categorised as waste by the appellant, can be regarded as good quality fibre by the department and excise duty levied thereon. In order to justify the levy of excise duty, the Collector had referred to and relied upon the statement of some persons who are alleged to have utilised the said waste for the purposes of spinning yarn.
3. The learned Counsel for the
appellant submits that the appellant should be given an opportunity of cross-examining those witnesses in order to determine whether the waste in question could be categorised as fibre for the purposes of levy of excise duty. He does not wish to cross-examine any other witness on those other statements to which reference may have been made.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we consider that this contention is well-founded. When the Collector has to decide afresh, he should, if he intends to rely upon the statement of any such person, give an opportunity of cross-examination to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
