9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, coercion and threat in obtaining evidence, denial of opportunity for cross-examination, financial capacity of the petitioner.
Waiver of Pre-Deposit of Duty: The application sought waiver of duty amounting to Rs. 23,73,837.64 imposed on the petitioner by the Collector of Central Excise. The petitioner argued that the seizure of a private diary, allegedly created under coercion and threat by officers, formed the basis of the proceedings. The petitioner contended that the impugned order failed to consider their explanation regarding the circumstances of coercion and threat. Additionally, the petitioner requested cross-examination of third parties whose statements were relied upon, which was denied. The tribunal noted the financial incapacity of the petitioner and directed a pre-deposit of Rs. 2,25,000 in addition to the Rs. 75,000 already paid, with the balance duty pre-deposit being dispensed with pending appeal. Coercion and Threat in Obtaining Evidence: The petitioner claimed that the private diary used as evidence was created under coercion and threat by officers. They highlighted that despite requesting the diary to be sent for examination by a handwriting expert, no conclusive opinion was provided. The tribunal acknowledged the petitioner's argument but emphasized that the petitioner had given inculpatory statements on multiple occasions, which were attested by family members. The tribunal found that, at an interlocutory stage, the impugned order was prima facie sustainable, considering the statements made by the petitioner and lack of retraction or complaint of coercion to the authorities. Denial of Opportunity for Cross-Examination: The petitioner's plea for cross-examination of third parties, whose statements were crucial in the case, was rejected. The tribunal noted this denial but balanced it against the petitioner's own inculpatory statements and the lack of retraction or complaint of coercion to the judicial magistrate. Despite the denial of cross-examination, the tribunal found that, at the interlocutory stage, the impugned order was not vitiated by the lack of cross-examination. Financial Capacity of the Petitioner: The petitioner's financial capacity was a significant factor in the tribunal's decision. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the petitioner's humble background as a former worker in a soap factory and emphasized their financial constraints. The tribunal took into account the petitioner's financial status, directing a specific pre-deposit amount while considering the petitioner's non-income tax assessee status and the lack of specific financial information available to the Department regarding the petitioner's financial position. Conclusion: The tribunal directed the petitioner to pre-deposit a specified amount by a set date, granting a stay of recovery pending appeal upon compliance. Both parties agreed to list the appeal for disposal after the pre-deposit was made, acknowledging the importance of legal questions and revenue implications in the case. The matter was scheduled for compliance reporting on a specified date, allowing for further proceedings after the pre-deposit was completed.
|
