9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms Act, 1962. He also observed that Rs. 16 lakhs have already been deposited by the appellants voluntarily. He imposed penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs on the appellant M/s. International Electron Devices Ltd., under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962. In addition, he also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on Shri Sudhir Kumar and Rs. 1,00,000/- each on Shri G.K. Taneja and Shri R.K. Tandon under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Shri B.V. Kumar appearing for the appellants submitted that he has no information whether the other notices namely G.K. Taneja and R.K. Tandon have filed appeal or not. After hearing for sometime with reference to the stay applications, we felt that the matter itself can be disposed of on limited issue. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oticee firm in this regard and the correspondence, exchanged with the Directorate of Industries I am not satisfied with the contentions of the noticee firm that in all cases they had sought clearance, on the basis of duty exemption certificate, as they failed to produce copies of the exemption certificates. I therefore, hold that the clearances of parts of electron guns covered vide invoices as mentioned in Annexure-D to the show cause notice (except invoice Nos. 890113, 890104) were made by the noticee firm without genuine duty exemption certificates and various employees and director of the company in their statement made under Section 108 of the Customs Act admitted that they had been managing clearances on the basis of forged duty conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanungo Co. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta and others, reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1486 (S.C.), particularly, he drew our attention to paras 12 and 13 which are as under :- 12. We may first deal with the question of breach of natural justice. On the material on record, in our opinion, there has been no such breach. In the show cause notice issued on August 21, 1961, all the material on which the Customs Authorities have relied was set out; and it was then for the appellant to give a suitable explanation. The complaint of the appellant now is that all the persons from whom enquiries were alleged to have been made by the authorities should have been placed to enable it to cross-examine them. In ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts were burnt/removed by the party, the same could not be supplied. If this was so, the Collector should have given such reason in the order but the same is not forthcoming. Further he should have given proper reason for rejecting the cross-examination of the other two employees. We agree with the argument advanced on behalf of the Revenue that cross-examination is not a must in each and every adjudication proceedings. Nevertheless the Adjudicating Authority should give reason for such rejection. Since such reason is not forthcoming in the impugned order, the order suffers from denial of principles of natural justice as it was rightly argued on behalf of the appellants. In the view, we have taken, the matter will have to go back for re-cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
