2014 (12) TMI 1117 - AT - Customs

Violation of principle of natural justice - order did not take into consideration various grievances raised in the reply to show cause notice. So also cross-examination of two officers were not allowed. Even the appellant was not allowed to file respective documents prior to filing of reply to show cause notice - Held that - Reasonable opportunity of hearing was not allowed and cross-examination not granted, we have directed appellant to file a note justifying the reason why cross-examination is required and also the chronology of the dates on which the appellant was required to appear and outcome thereof - The fact of existence of video recording in respect of search to the premises of appellant came to be noticed from record. If the appellant chooses to produce the same that should be produced on the next date of hearing. Appellant further says that certain other relevant documents shall also be filed. In view of the prayer of the appellant to allow opportunity to produce certain documents, matter is posted to further date - appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues: Violation of natural justice, cross-examination, production of video recording and relevant documents

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the appellant raised a grievance of violation of natural justice. The appellant contended that despite filing a reply to the show cause notice, the impugned order was passed without considering the grievances raised in the reply. The appellant also highlighted that cross-examination of two officers was not allowed, and there was a restriction on filing respective documents before responding to the notice. These issues were claimed to have infringed upon the principles of natural justice. On the other hand, the revenue argued that cross-examination was permitted, but the appellant did not utilize the opportunity.

Upon hearing the contentions, the Tribunal directed the appellant to submit a note justifying the need for cross-examination and to provide a chronological account of the dates on which the appellant was required to appear and the outcomes. Additionally, it was noted that there existed a video recording related to the search conducted at the appellant's premises. The Tribunal instructed the appellant to produce this recording on the next hearing date. The appellant also expressed the intention to file other relevant documents. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to allow the appellant the opportunity to submit the requested documents and scheduled the matter for further proceedings on 22nd May 2014.