V. K. SINGHAL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 27-4-1993 passed by the Collector of Central excise. The dispute is regarding the classification of the products manufactured by the petitioner as to whether the Fungicides as claimed by the petitioner are disinfectants as held by the respondent. In this petition, it is stated that the principles of natural justice have been violated as the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity of cross-examination of the Chemical examiner. The Collector held that the expert opinion is only a piece of evidence. The findings are corroborated by various statements of the employees of the assessee themselves duly supported by documentary evidence such as packing slip etc. Reliance was placed on the judgment given in the case of Kanungo and Co. , v. Collector AIR1972 sc 2136 , 2003 (89 )ECC764 (SC ), 1983 (13 ) ELT1486 (SC ), (1973 )2 SCC438 , 1972 (4 )UJ712 (SC ), wherein, it was held by the Supreme Court that the "principles of natural justice did not require that in every matter, the persons who have given an opinion should be examined in the presence of the appellant or allowed to be cross-examined by the person concerned in respect of the statements made before the Customs Authorities". ( 2 ) ARGUMENTS of learned Counsel for both the parties heard. ( 3 ) THE question as to whether, in a particular case, the petitioner should be given an opportunity of cross-examination of the expert will always depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. There may be cases where the statements is on the disputed facts, cross-examination may not be necessary. On the other hand, there may be cases, where, to bring the truth on record, because of doubtful or disputed nature of statement, it would be necessary for providing an opportunity for the cross-examination. Under Criminal Law, cross-examination is the essence of judicial act and fair play, by which, the truth is brought on record. The principles of criminal jurisprudence cannot be strictly applicable in the proceedings under Central Excise Act. In K. L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India and Ors. Under Criminal Law, cross-examination is the essence of judicial act and fair play, by which, the truth is brought on record. The principles of criminal jurisprudence cannot be strictly applicable in the proceedings under Central Excise Act. In K. L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India and Ors. AIR1984 SC 273 , [1984 (48 )FLR38 ], 1983 Lablc1680 , (1984 )I LLJ2 SC , 1983 (2 )SCALE587 , (1984 )1 SCC43 , [1984 ]1 SCR184 , 1983 (2 )SLJ623 (SC ), it was observed : "the basic concept is fair play in action administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial. The concept of fair play in action must depend upon the particular lis, if there be any, between the parties. If the credibility of a person who has testified or given some information is in doubt, or if the version or the statement of the person who has testified, is, in dispute, right of cross-examination must inevitably form part of fair play in action but where there is no regarding the facts but certain explanation of the circumstances there is no requirement of cross-examination to be fulfilled to justify fair play in action. When on the question of facts there was no dispute, no real prejudice has been caused to a party aggrieved by an order, by absence of any formal opportunity of cross-examination per se does not invalidate or vitiate the decision arrived at fairly. This is more so when the party against whom an order has been passed does not dispute the facts and does not demand to test the veracity of the version of the credibility of the statement. The party who does not want to controvert the veracity of the evidence from or testimony gathered behind his back cannot expect to succeed in any subsequent demand that there was no opportunity of cross-examination specially when it was not asked for and there was no dispute about the veracity of the statement. Where there is no dispute as to the facts, or the weight to be attached on disputed facts but only an explanation of the acts, absence of opportunity to cross-examination does not create any prejudice in such cases. Where there is no dispute as to the facts, or the weight to be attached on disputed facts but only an explanation of the acts, absence of opportunity to cross-examination does not create any prejudice in such cases. " ( 4 ) THE Collector has observed that the findings recorded are not based on the information of the chemical Examiner but are corroborated by various statements of employees of the assessee themselves duly supported by the documentary evidences such as the packing slip etc. It is not in dispute that the Chemical Examiner was not allowed to be cross-examined, but whether not providing an opportunity of cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner has vitiated the proceedings, depends on various other factors including other evidence. The Central Excises and salt Act provides an efficacious remedy of filing an Appeal against the order of the Collector, central Excise to the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal. Though this petition was filed in 1993, normally I would have examined this matter on merits, but since the points raised are such, which require factual examination of various statements and documents which could properly and effectively be done by CEGAT, I feel it proper that the petitioner may file an appeal within four weeks from today. The petitioners would be free to file an application for dispensing with the pre-deposit as it is stated that the business of the Company has been closed. The Tribunal would consider the matter sympathetically and pass an order on the stay application within one month from the date of filing of the application by the petitioner. If the appeal is filed within the aforsaid period, no objections regarding limitation would be raised.