1991 (8) TMI 217 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of adjournment and violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Refusal to permit cross-examination of witnesses.
3. Reliance on retracted self-incriminating statements without independent corroboration.
4. Quantum of penalty imposed.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Adjournment and Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that the adjudicating authority's refusal to adjourn the hearing scheduled for 16-5-1988 resulted in a violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellant's counsel had requested the adjournment due to recent appointment and inability to receive complete instructions from the appellant because of disturbed conditions and curfew in Amritsar. The refusal was claimed to have deprived the appellant of an effective opportunity to defend the case. However, the tribunal noted that two previous adjournments had already been granted, and the third request appeared unjustified. The tribunal emphasized that the principles of natural justice require fair play in action, but the request for adjournment must be considered in the context of the case's facts. The tribunal concluded that the refusal to grant the third adjournment did not violate the principles of natural justice.

2. Refusal to Permit Cross-examination of Witnesses:
The appellant contended that the Collector's refusal to allow cross-examination of seizing officers and witnesses relied upon by the department violated the principles of natural justice. The tribunal observed that the request for cross-examination did not specify the names of the witnesses or their relevance. The tribunal cited the Supreme Court's judgment in K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India, stating that the rules of natural justice are flexible and must be judged based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The tribunal concluded that the request for cross-examination without specifying names and relevance was intended to delay the proceedings and was rightly rejected by the Collector.

3. Reliance on Retracted Self-incriminating Statements Without Independent Corroboration:
The appellant argued that the order imposing the penalty was based solely on the retracted statement, which was extracted under duress and pressure. The tribunal noted that foreign-marked gold was recovered from the secret cavity of a scooter in the presence of the appellant and another person. The appellant's statement provided details of how the gold was smuggled and concealed. The tribunal found that the appellant's statement led to the discovery of a cavity in a tractor, corroborating the appellant's statement. The tribunal referred to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which allows the admissibility of statements leading to the discovery of facts. The tribunal concluded that the appellant's statement, even if retracted, was corroborated by independent evidence, and the argument lacked merit.

4. Quantum of Penalty Imposed:
The appellant submitted that the penalty of Rupees one lakh imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act was excessive and unwarranted. The tribunal considered the facts and circumstances of the case and concluded that a lower penalty would meet the ends of justice. The tribunal reduced the penalty from Rupees one lakh to Rupees fifty thousand, subject to this modification, the appeal was otherwise dismissed.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the confiscation of gold and the imposition of a penalty, but reduced the penalty amount from Rupees one lakh to Rupees fifty thousand. The tribunal found no violation of the principles of natural justice in denying the adjournment and cross-examination requests and deemed the appellant's retracted statement corroborated by independent evidence.

← Previous Next →