Refusal of permission to cross-examine does not necessarily vitiate orders if the statements are supported by materials and documents, and there is no evidence of coercion in obtaining the statements.

M.M. Sundresh, J.

1. Challenge in the writ petition is the order passed by the respondent No.2 as confirmed by the respondent No.1 wherein Central Excise Duty penalty and confiscation have been ordered.

2. Heard Mr. C. Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well Mr. T.R. Senthilkumar, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The brief factors of the case are as follows:

The writ petitioner is a manufacturer of Coated Cotton Fabrics (rexin cloth) falling under Tariff Item No.19(111) of Central Excise Tariff. The Directors of the writ petitioner company are Shri. N.S. Anjaiah Shetty and his family members consisting of his sons and others.

They are also two partnership firms in the vary same premises by name M/s. Subramaniam and Company and M/s. Ramkumar Enterprises owned and controlled by the sons of Shri. N.S. Anjaiah Sherty. Similarly, M/s. Meenakshi Enterprises, Madurai and M/s. International Traders are Proprietors concerned in the name of Shri. N.A Venkatesh who is also a son of Shri. N.S. Anjaiah Shetty. It is to be noted that most of the directors of the petitioner company and the proprietors/partners of the firms referred above are living under the same roof at No.6, Puttanna Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-4.

Based on the intelligence received, the petitioner company was searched on 21 2.1985 and on 26.1 1985 and materials and records have been seized. Thereafter, as a follow up the premises of M/s. Subramaniam and Company was also searched and materials have been seized.

During the investigation it was found that the petitioner company was involved in clandestine removal of goods to other firms which are infact run and controlled by the family members of Shri. N.S. Anjaiah Shetty. Hence, investigation has been made on those companies and materials, records and statements have been obtained.

Based upon the documents and materials seized from the petitioner company and the marketing concerns, corroborated by the statements obtained from some of the directors of the petitioner company and 4 the persons in charge of the marketing concerns, a show cause notice has been issued by the Collector of Central Excise, the second respondent herein in and by his proceedings dated 25. 1986 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the excise duty along with penalty and confiscation should not be ordered, for the alleged violation stated in the show cause notice and for the contravention of Rule 9, 52-A, 173-B, 173-C, 173-F, 173-G and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

The petitioner was also given number of opportunities from 28. 1986 onwards. Thereafter, after hearing the petitioner a final order No.63/86 dated 30.12.1986 was passed by the second respondent imposing Central Excise Duty with penalty and confiscation.

Being aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the writ petitioner before the first respondent herein in Appeal No.E/SB/852/87-A. The first respondent in turn after considering the entire materials on record was pleased to dismiss the appeal, thereby confirming the order of the second respondent passed under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the above said orders of the respondents herein.

4. Submissions of the petitioner Shri. C. Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the orders passed by the respondents will have to be set aside solely on the ground that the principles of natural justice have been violated since in spite of the specific request the petitioner was not permitted to cross-examine the persons who have given statements during investigation. According to Shri. C. Saravanan, that when a request has been made for cross-examination such a request ought to have been conceded to by the respondents before proceeding further. Hs further contended that a statements obtained behind the back of the petitioner cannot be relied upon. Moreover, the s