9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Rs. 1,36,052.16 paise CIF. The goods were confiscated and a fine of Rs. 30,000/- was levied as also a penalty of Rs. 15,000/-. Hence this appeal. 2. Shri Sridharan, the learned Advocate submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained because the so called price list of Erbis Engineering Company Ltd., Japan (Erbis price list for short) was not shown to the appellants in spite of a request being made. The learned Advocate argued that a copy of the price list as filed by the Revenue on 25-10-1990 before this Tribunal cannot be used against the appellants because it is an edited list not showing the addressee and in any event the appellants should not be confronted with such a document 7 or 8 years after the importation as they woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Customs for fresh adjudication. After hearing the appellants he pleaded that the same course of action may be followed in this matter also. He emphasised that there was no ground to expect any bias against the appellants. In this context the learned representative cited and relied on a judgment of the Tribunal in Steel Tubes Products v. Collector of Customs [1989 (44) E.L.T. 97] with specific reference to paragraph 25 thereof. Shri Prabhat Kumar further argued that even if quotation does not bear any name it is valid and cited the judgment of the Bombay High Court, first passed by a Single Judge and then upheld by a Division Bench in Satellite Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [1983 (14) E.L.T. 2177 (Bom.) and 1987 (31) E.L.T. 356 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is now 7 years since the importation has taken place. 8. In Steel Tube Products (supra) the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Collector with a direction that full details of the contemporaneous imports relied on by the Collector should be given to them. We are aware that there are other appeals in which the Tribunal remanded the matters to authorities for compliance with the principles of natural justice. However, in our opinion there cannot be a claim for remand when the omission was made deliberately as is the factual position in this case. This position is clear from the impugned order which records the appellants request for the document. There may be cases where in spite of such a circumstance the Bench may feel that in spite of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
