(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.Anita Sumanth, J.,) Heard Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel, who takes notice for the respondent.
2. By order dated 29.1.2016, the respondent authority has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to cross-examine the Central Revenue Control Laboratory official on the aspect of nomenclature with regard to the raw material used in the manufacture of carbon black feedstock and it appears that the Additional Commissioner, having considered the request for cross examination, found that it is not necessary, by giving technical reasons. This order was not challenged, but, subsequently, at the time of final hearing, in para 42 of the impugned order, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the basis of the earlier order of the Additional Commissioner.
3. The learned Single Judge, in para 19 of the judgment, pointed out that the earlier order has not been challenged and accordingly, rightly the respondent-authority had rejected the prayer of the petitioner for cross-examination.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent raised an objecton to the effect that there is an alternative remedy available to the appellant.
5. Whenever there is violation of principles of natural justice, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not closed. In that view of the matter, even though the first order passed by the adjudicating authority has not been challenged, when the respondent authority has reiterated the same in the concluding part of the impugned order, it speaks to the fact that there is non-compliance of principles of natural justice and the petitioner has not been afforded opportunity to cross-examine to make his stand clear and to stand by his defence. Unless the same is brought on record by eliciting in cross examination, further argument, if any, raised, would be a futile exercise. In that view of the matter, modifying the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the order of the adjudicating authority rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for cross-examination, we allow the petitioner/appellant to cross examine the Central Revenue Control Laboratory official. Such exercise shall be done within two months and thereafter, after hearing the appellant, further orders may be passed in accordance with law.
6. The writ appeals are partly allowed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index: Yes / no Internet: Yes/no ssk.
To The Additional Commissioner of Customs, 6/7, ATD Street, Race Course, Coimbatore 641 018.
(H.G.R.,ACJ) (A.S.M.,J) 17.2.2017.
HULUVADI G. RAMESH, ACJ., AND DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J., ssk.
W.A.Nos.130 and 131 of 2017 17.2.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in