1986 (2) TMI 181 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals)
- Compliance with Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982

Analysis:
1. Appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals):
The case involved an appeal filed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), which set aside the Assistant Collector's order exonerating the respondent of charges under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The matter related to the seizure of a consignment of sarees and subsequent penalty imposition. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) for disposal based on certain observations. The key issue was the applicability of the first part of Section 113(d) of the Act concerning goods attempted to be exported.

2. Compliance with Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982:
The main contention revolved around the compliance of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) with Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. The appellant argued that the additional evidence relied upon by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was not produced in compliance with the rules. The rule stipulated that no evidence should be admitted unless the reasons for its admission were recorded in writing, and the adjudicating authority had a reasonable opportunity to examine or cross-examine witnesses. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the evidence did not prejudice the department and was necessary for a just disposal of the appeal. However, it was noted that the respondent failed to provide the department with an opportunity to examine the evidence or produce rebuttal evidence, as required by the rules.

3. The judgment highlighted that the respondent had tendered additional evidence before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) without affording the adjudicating authority or the officer authorized by the authority an opportunity to examine the evidence or produce rebuttal evidence. The failure to comply with Rule 5(3) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 was deemed to render the impugned order legally unsustainable. The argument that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) had the power to direct production of documents suo motu was rejected, emphasizing the importance of affording the other party a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

4. In conclusion, the judgment set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal, and remitted the matter back for reconsideration by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in accordance with the law. The Department was to be given an opportunity to be heard regarding the additional evidence produced by the respondent. The judgment also noted that the penalty imposed on the respondent was waived and need not be deposited again.