Gujarat High Court
Mahek Glazes Pvt Ltd & vs Union Of India & on 28 February, 2013
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
MAHEK GLAZES PVT LTDV/SUNION OF INDIA C/SCA/2358/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2358 of 2013 =========================================================== MAHEK GLAZES PVT LTD & 1....Petitioner(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA & 1....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR Deven Parikh, Sr. Counsel for Mr. NIRAV P SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI Date : 28/02/2013 ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Counsel for the petitioner stated that, in reply dated 20.11.2012, the petitioner requested to treat the same as a preliminary reply and reserve the right of petitioner to file further and final reply after cross-examination of as many as 28 persons, who were mentioned in reply and whose statements were relied upon by the department. It was requested that cross-examination of such persons be granted.
Counsel stated that without granting any such cross-examination or even without deciding the request of the petitioner for cross-examination, the Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order confirming duty demand and penalties. Drawing our attention to the impugned order-in-original, counsel submitted that in such order also the petitioner s stand, that the petitioner would present the case further after cross-examination is granted, was noted by the Adjudicating Authority. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, we are inclined to examine the issue in a writ petition though we are conscious that against the order-in-original, statutory departmental remedy is available.
We are prima facie of the opinion that to examine each and every person may not be a vested right in the noticee and whether to grant cross-examination on the grounds, depend on the facts of a particular case. When such a request is made, at least the person has a right to have such a request considered. Under the circumstances, NOTICE returnable on 21.03.2013.
The respondents shall not implement the impugned order. Direct service.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) Jyoti Page 2 of 2