M/S Ankit Enterprise vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that both writ petitions were directly covered by the established proposition of law laid down in the aforementioned decisions. The Court found that the right to cross-examine witnesses, whose statements are proposed to be relied upon for confirming any part of the show cause notice, is a fundamental aspect of natural justice. The reasoning was that even if the petitioners had access to the material on record, this does not negate their right to confront and cross-examine the individuals providing oral evidence. The Court allowed the petitions, quashing and setting aside the impugned orders. The adjudicating authority was directed to offer for cross-examination such witnesses whose statements are proposed to be relied upon for confirming any part of the show cause notice. The ratio decidendi is that the right to cross-examine is sacrosanct and cannot be denied merely because the party had access to the evidence.

Facts

The petitioners, Shree Salasarji Metal Industries, filed two writ petitions challenging letters/orders dated February 16/19, 2018, and January 23/24, 2018, issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise GST and Central Excise, Gandhinagar. These orders denied the petitioners' request for cross-examination of witnesses during an investigation. The denial was based on the premise that the partner of the petitioner firm had already availed the opportunity to examine the veracity of documentary and oral evidence gathered. The petitioners argued that this denial violated their right to natural justice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the denial of the petitioners' request for cross-examination of witnesses, despite the partner having reviewed documentary and oral evidence, violates the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the denial of cross-examination was erroneous. They relied on several High Court judgments, including Mulchand M. Zaveri v. Union of India, Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II vs. Gujarat Cypromet Ltd., Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs vs. Chandan Tubes & Metals Pvt. Ltd., and Manek Chemicals Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India, as well as the Supreme Court decision in Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II. These precedents, they contended, clearly uphold the right of an affected party to cross-examine witnesses, irrespective of prior access to materials. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the respondent was not able to dispute the proposition of law presented by the petitioners and suggested that the Court might pass an order treating the case as peculiar.