Supreme Court of India Union Of India & Others vs M/S. G.T.C. Industries Limited on 27 March, 2003 Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 3450, 2003 (4) SCC 493, 2003 AIR SCW 1950, 2003 (2) UJ (SC) 870, (2004) 1 JCR 98 (SC), (2003) 3 SCR 106 (SC), 2003 (2) LRI 173, 2003 (4) ACE 177, (2003) 6 ALLINDCAS 138 (SC), 2003 (3) SCR 106, 2003 (3) SLT 1, (2003) 3 ALLMR 331 (SC), (2003) 2 MARRILJ 200, 2003 (2) BLJR 1420, 2003 (3) ALL MR 331, (2003) 3 JT 399 (SC), 2003 (3) SCALE 475.2, 2003 (3) JT 399, 2003 (2) ALL CJ 1535, 2003 BLJR 2 1420, 2003 (5) SRJ 460, 2003 (2) MARR LJ 200, (2003) 2 ANDH LT 660, (2004) 2 BLJ 16, (2003) 3 CAL HN 120, (2003) 2 KER LT 243, (2003) 2 MAD LW 657, (2003) MATLR 402, (2003) 3 RAJ LW 379, (2003) 2 SUPREME 962, (2003) 2 RECCIVR 795, (2003) 3 SCALE 475(2), (2003) 5 INDLD 62, (2003) 51 ALL LR 289, (2003) 3 ANDH LT 41, (2003) 25 OCR 153, (2003) 1 DMC 627, (2003) 2 CIVILCOURTC 27, (2003) 1 WLC(SC)CVL 548, (2003) 2 CURCC 97, (2003) 2 MAHLR 492, (2003) 2 ALL WC 1534, (2003) 2 CIVLJ 795, (2003) 3 ANDHLD 1, (2003) 6 BOM CR 396 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7531 of 1995 Appeal (civil) 7815 of 1995 PETITIONER: Union of India & Others RESPONDENT: M/s. G.T.C. Industries Limited DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/03/2003 SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & ASHOK BHAN. JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T BHAN, J. Civil Appeal No. 7531 of 1995 Union of India has filed this appeal against the order of the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule No. 1940 of 1989 wherein the High Court at the instance of respondent No.1 has quashed the order passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Shillong. (for short 'the Collector') dated 15th May 1990 and remanded the case to the Collector for a fresh decision with the following directions : "In view of the above, the adjudication order dated 15.5.90 is set aside. The collector shall resume the proceedings and summon the aforesaid three persons viz. Sri R. Salio, Sri Liangtilinga and Sri Lalchungunga for necessary examination in accordance with the observation made above and thereafter proceed to decide the matter afresh. The other materials obtained and already on record shall be available for the purpose . We also direct that further proceedings shall be taken by an officer other than the one who has made the adjudication order dated 15/ 16 May, 1990 and the competent authority in that regard shall take appropriate action and make necessary orders." Facts relevant to the points raised in this appeal are: GTC Industries Ltd.(respondent in this appeal) is a well known manufacturer of cigarettes having its own brand names one of which is Panama Virgin. GTC Ltd. was having its cigarettes manufactured inter alia, through M/s. North Eastern Tobacco having its own place of work in Mizoram. These cigarettes were being removed from the premises of North Eastern Tobacco (hereinafter referred to 'NET') without payment of Excise Duty and the same was detected when certain vehicles carrying the cigarettes were apprehended by the Excise Authorities. The Collector issued Show Cause Notices to GTC and NET. Show Cause Notices were also issued to the partners of NET M/s Sailo, Lalchunganga and Liangtilinga, to one Ajay Sukhani who was the power of attorney holder on behalf of NET and also the officers of GTC and its sister concerns with the allegation that NET was set up as a front company by GTC to evade payment of excise duty. Contravention of various provisions of the act was alleged against GTC as well as its officers. In the course of hearing before the Collector of Central Excise GTC applied to the Collector requesting that summons be issued under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to the partners of NET including Shri Sailo so that GTC could cross examine him. The Collector after hearing arguments ruled that he could not issue summons to the said persons inasmuch as they were also conoticees to the proceedings. They had also been issued show cause notices for contravening the provisions of the Act and therefore could not be compelled to appear for the purpose of cross examination by another conoticee. The Collector held: "Of the persons who were asked to cross examination three of them viz. Richard Sailo, Liangtilinga, Lalchungnunga are conoticees to these proceedings. By issuing them summons as requested by GTC, prejudice is likely to be caused to their defence by compelling their attendance before me. It isan established principle of law that no noticee can be forced to appear before the adjudicator . In fact, I had given the opportunity by letters dated 23rd Oct., 1989 and 17th November, 1989 to M/s GTC to bring these persons as their own witnesses, if they wished to rely on their testimony. But they have not done so. Being unable to issue summons to these persons, I cannot but