2016 (11) TMI 614 - HC - Customs

Denial of permission to cross-examine certain witnesses during the course of adjudication proceedings initiated under Section 28 read with Section 124 of the Customs Act - Held that - the provisions of Section 129A(1)(a) clearly indicate that any order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority, an appeal would lie before the Tribunal - this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside - The Tribunal is directed to reconsider the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Denial of permission to cross-examine witnesses during adjudication proceedings under Customs Act; Maintainability of appeal under Section 129A of Customs Act.

Denial of Permission to Cross-Examine Witnesses:
The petitioner challenged an order by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal denying permission to cross-examine certain witnesses during adjudication proceedings under Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act. The High Court had previously directed the petitioner to approach the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, held that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 129A of the Customs Act. However, Section 129A(1)(a) allows appeals against decisions or orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority. The High Court found that the impugned order was not in line with Section 129A(1)(a) and set it aside. The Tribunal was directed to reconsider the matter, giving an opportunity to the petitioner.

Maintainability of Appeal under Section 129A:
The issue of maintainability of the appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act was crucial in this judgment. The High Court interpreted Section 129A(1)(a) to clarify that any order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority would allow for an appeal before the Tribunal. The Court held that the impugned order by the Tribunal was not in accordance with this provision, leading to the setting aside of the order. The petitioner was granted the opportunity for a fresh consideration of the matter by the Tribunal. Additionally, the Court deferred further proceedings for a month to enable the petitioner to seek a stay before the Tribunal. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Customs Act in adjudication proceedings and appeals.