ORDER
R. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. Though this day only the stay applications are listed for hearing, after hearing both the sides, we are constrained to disposed of the appeals on a short ground (we are doing the second time).
2. All these appeals are directed against the Order-in-Original No.SG/INF-133/87(S/10-6/PMP/90SIIB) dated 24-2-1992 passed by the Collector of Customs (Judicial), Bombay.
3. On an order passed earlier by the Collector, the matter came up before this Bench vide Order No. 2074-82/91WRB dated 11-11-1991. This Bench disposed of the appeals filed by the appellants on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice because the order was passed without personal hearing and without considering the request for cross-examination. The gist of the order passed by this Bench is extracted below :-
“…We set aside the order of the Collector in so far as the present applicants/appellants before us are concerned, but remand their case back to the Collector for de novo adjudication after considering their request for cross-examination and granting personal hearing…”
Accordingly de novo proceedings were initiated by the Collector wherein the applicants/appellants have requested for cross-examination of certain witnesses particularly Mr. Parekh, the Director of M/s. Tejprabha Textile Mills, whose testimony is sought to be relied upon. The Collector, however, has dismissed this request stating that no useful purpose would be served by permitting the cross-examination of the persons named by the Counsel for the appellants and hence he was asked to proceed with the case, without going into the question of cross-examination. The Ld Adv. referred to para 33 of the order of the Collector in this regard and has also submitted that the testimony of Mr. Parekh is fully relied upon by the Department (vide para 61 of the order) without giving them an opportunity to cross examine the person.
4. Shri Arun Tandon, the Ld. SDR, however, pleads that M/s. Tejprabha Textile Mills are not the supporting manufacturer as per the DEEC Book and none of the provisions of Chapter IV-A have been complied with for despatch of the yarn imported under the DEEC Scheme which have been diverted to the market. There are other evidences apart from the testimony of these persons. Hence he contended that no useful purpose would be served in allowing cross-examination.
5. After hearing both the sides, we would like to extract the relevant portion of the order of the Collector recorded under para 33 of the said order :-
“33. At the outset Dr. Kantawala stated that he had asked for cross-examination of certain persons vide his letter dated 1st February, 1992 but that he was informed by AC/SIIB vide letter dated 5th February 1992 that his request for cross examination was not accepted by the Adjudicating Officer. He wanted confirmation of fact that his request for cross examination of certain persons mentioned in his letter dated 1st February 1992. He was informed that after going through the statements of these persons and their testimony I had decided that no useful purpose would be served by permitting cross examination of these persons. Thereafter Dr. Kantawala was asked to proceed to argue the case on merits without going into the question of cross-examination.”
From the above it is clear that the Collector has not chosen to give any reason as to why cross-examination was not called for in this case and he has also not indicated whether the case against the appellants could stand proved even without considering the testimony of the persons. We no doubt appreciate that cross-examination cannot be demanded as a matter of right in the adjudication proceedings, but when certain statements are. sought to be relied upon essentially, fair opportunity of examining those witnesses should be given and only in that view, in our earlier order, we directed the adjudicating authority to consider the request for cross-examination of certain witnesses if their statements are sought to be relied upon. If he considers that these witnesses need not be cross-examined, he should have atleast stated the reasons for that. Mere dismissal of the request by stating that no useful purpose would be served, vitiates the order, inasmuch as it shows that he was rushing to adjudicate the case without considering the evidences in their proper perspective. In this view of the matter, we are constrained to set aside the order on the short ground and remand the case back to the Collector for considering the request of the appellants for cross-examination of the persons, whose depositions are sought to be relied upon. The Collector may fix suitable date and issue summons to the witnesses named by the appellants and after cross-examination is completed, based on the final submissions, may pass orders in accordance with law. All the appeals are allowed by way of remand in the above terms.
6. Since the appeals themselves are disposed of, the stay applications are also treated as disposed of.