Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

S.P. Garg and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

S.P. Garg and ors. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 27, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33939

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S.P. Garg and ors.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

1. shri. s.p. garg, director of the ramji board and paper mills pvt.ltd interalia contended that the appellants were denied the cross examination by the successor commissioner on the ground that earlier the noticees had refused cross examination. he submitted that he appeared in person and as such he should not have been denied the opportunity of cross examination. his contention is that since the appellants have been denied the opportunity of cross examination it clearly violates the principles of natural justice and the order appealed against requires to be set aside on this ground alone. shri.a. chopra, ld. jdr appeared on behalf of the revenue and he submitted that since the appellants have been denied the cross examination sought for, he has no objection for the matter being remanded to the commissioner for re-adjudication after the necessary cross examination is allowed to the appellants as sought for before him.2. after hearing both sides and perusal of the records, we find it necessary in the interest of the natural justice that in order to have effective representation the appellants should not have been denied the cross examination by the commissioner as sought for before him. hence denial of cross examination on the ground that earlier the appellants have refused the cross examination is not justified particularly in view of the fact that when the director appeared himself in person for the purpose. we, therefore, remand the matter to the commissioner with the direction that the appellants may be afforded the opportunity of cross examination and the matter may be re-adjudicated. thereafter a speaking order may be passed by him.

Full Judgment

1. Shri. S.P. Garg, Director of the Ramji Board and Paper Mills Pvt.

Ltd interalia contended that the appellants were denied the cross examination by the successor Commissioner on the ground that earlier the noticees had refused cross examination. He submitted that he appeared in person and as such he should not have been denied the opportunity of cross examination. His contention is that since the appellants have been denied the opportunity of cross examination it clearly violates the principles of natural justice and the order appealed against requires to be set aside on this ground alone. Shri.

A. Chopra, Ld. JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue and he submitted that since the appellants have been denied the cross examination sought for, he has no objection for the matter being remanded to the Commissioner for re-adjudication after the necessary cross examination is allowed to the appellants as sought for before him.

2. After hearing both sides and perusal of the records, we find it necessary in the interest of the natural justice that in order to have effective representation the appellants should not have been denied the cross examination by the Commissioner as sought for before him. Hence denial of cross examination on the ground that earlier the appellants have refused the cross examination is not justified particularly in view of the fact that when the Director appeared himself in person for the purpose. We, therefore, remand the matter to the Commissioner with the direction that the appellants may be afforded the opportunity of cross examination and the matter may be re-adjudicated. Thereafter a speaking order may be Passed by him.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial