- (1.) Being aggrieved by the orders dated 27.11.2012 and 4.1.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (ADJN), New Delhi and perceived by the petitioner to be extinctive of its right of cross-examination of witnesses based amongst others on whose testimony a show cause notice has been issued by the respondents alleging clandestine removal by it of cigarettes without payment of the central excise duty, it is before this Court seeking intervention for redress.
(2.) We have heard Mr.A.K.Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Ajay Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(3.) Having regard to the limited issue seeking the scrutiny by this Court in the instant proceedings, it is considered inessential to dilate on facts. Suffice it to mention that on an earlier occasion in connection with the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice referred to hereinabove, the petitioner had approached this Court being aggrieved by non-furnishing of relevant documents by the respondent no.3 to it so as to enable it to effectively rebut the allegations levelled therein. Vis-a-vis the witnesses whose evidence also formed the basis of show cause notice, it, as on date, has cross-examined 7 witnesses out of 68, whose statements had been recorded by the Revenue to substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioner. With the lapse of time, it is admitted by the parties that many of such witnesses are in the meantime, dead, infirm and away from the country. Inspite of the above, the petitioner seeks to cross-examine the remaining witnesses as available so as to effectively controvert the imputations against it. It was in response to such a request that by the order dated 27.11.2012 as above, it was required to file reply as to why the statements tendered by various witnesses should not be considered in terms of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, hereafter referred to as the Act) in view of the efforts already made to call for cross-examination. The materials on record reveal that on 4.1.2013, the petitioner has submitted a request with the Commissioner of Central Excise (ADJN), New Delhi referring to his order dated 27.11.2012 that the right of cross-examination of the witnesses was in-built in Section 9D of the Act as a tenet of the principles of natural justice as elaborated by the Delhi High Court in J. & K. Cigarettes Ltd. V/s Collector of Central Excise, 2009 242 ELT 189 and reiterated its request for being permitted to cross-examine the witnesses on whose statements the impugned action was proposed to be taken against it. The Commissioner of Central Excise (ADJN), New Delhi, however, passed an order on the very same day i.e. 4.1.2013 fixing 10.1.2013 to be the date by which reply as required vide his order dated 27.11.2012 ought to be filed. Thereby, personal hearing was also fixed on that date.;