Alternative Remedy of Appeal can be availed on denial of Cross-examination: Madras High Court [Read Judgment]

The Madras High Court held that the alternative remedy of appeal can be availed on denial of cross-examination.

The respondent, Vijayraj Surana has filed the writ petition challenging the Order-in- Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs and for a direction to the additional Commissioner of Customs to adjudicate the case afresh after permitting examination (cross-examination) of persons, whose statements were relied on in the show cause notice.

The Single Bench, by order disposed of the writ petition with an observation that the respondent-writ petitioner can be granted an opportunity to cross-examine three witnesses within a stipulated time and consequently, set aside the order passed by the first appellant in Order-in- Appeal. The Writ Court also fixed a time frame within which such exercise has to be completed. Further, the Court held that it had not expressed any view with regard to the merits of the case and the authorities were granted liberty to pass orders in accordance with the law. The correctness of such order and direction issued in the writ petition is challenged before us in this appeal.

The Coram of Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup noted that the Writ Court had set aside the order passed by the first appellant without taking note of the fact that it is a common order not only for the respondent but for nine others, who have not preferred any appeal against the said order.

“So far as the finding rendered by the appellants, denying the request of cross-examination is concerned, we are of the opinion that the same is perfectly in order and the respondent cannot be heard to say that there has been a violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise vs. Dunlop India Ltd., [(1985) 1 SCC 260 (SC)] can be applied to the facts and circumstances of the case and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy,” the court said.

The court heard the Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellants, and Mr.S.Murugappan, counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.