2018 (4) TMI 1193 - AT - Customs

Principles of Natural Justice - rejection of cross-examination - misuse of advance licence / advance authorization scheme - Held that - As the present appellant is only a co-noticee in the impugned proceedings, we do not find any reason to deviate from the decision in respect of the main protagonist in the case of M/s. Vedanta Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin 2018 (1) TMI 1024 - CESTAT CHENNAI , where it was held that When the right of the appellant for cross-examination has been taken away by the said decision of the adjudicating authority, merely because the same is issued in the form of a letter and not clothed as an order, it cannot be said that the said letter / decision is not an appealable order - matter remanded to adjudicating authority.

Summary

Issues:
1. Cross-examination request rejection
2. Request for supply of documents rejection

Cross-examination request rejection: The appellant appealed against a letter rejecting the cross-examination request made in connection with a Show Cause Notice issued to M/s. Vedanta Ltd. for alleged Customs duty evasion. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by directing the adjudicating authority to permit cross-examination of witnesses as per Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal emphasized that denial of cross-examination was unjustified and distinguished a previous case where the request was declined. The appellant's intention to use documents to defend their case was noted, but the Tribunal rejected the request for supply of documents as specific documents were not requested, and only a vague request for the entire chain of correspondence was made.

Request for supply of documents rejection: The Tribunal found that the appellant had not requested any particular document but had obtained some documents through an RTI application. The appellant's claim of selective document furnishing was noted, but as specific documents were not requested for, the grievance could not be entertained. The Tribunal emphasized that without specifying the particular document needed, the request could not be allowed. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the request for document supply, stating that the appellant's intention to use the documents to defend their case did not justify the request without specific details. The appeal was partly allowed, directing the adjudicating authority to permit cross-examination but upholding the rejection of the document supply request.

Final Decision: The Tribunal disposed of the appeal, maintaining the same directions as in a previous final order related to the main protagonist of the case. The appeal was remanded to the adjudicating authority with directions to follow Section 138B of the Customs Act and allow cross-examination of witnesses. Both the Miscellaneous Application and the appeal were disposed of accordingly, with the same terms as the previous final order.