- (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.;