9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngines on the findings of the undervaluation and mis-description, penalties of Rs. 20 lakh, Rs. 7.5 lakh, Rs. 7.5 lakh and Rs. 2 lakh have been imposed on M/s. Manjushree Minerals Ltd. and its Directors S/Shri N.L. Dalmia, Dinesh Gupta and Shri B.D. Gupta respectively. 3. Vide the second order, the diesel engines have been ordered to be confiscated absolutely apart from imposition of penalties of Rs. 10 lakh, 5 lakh and Rs. 2 lakh on M/s. Ritu Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors S/Shri Dinesh Gupta and B.D. Ghosh respectively. 4. Arguing on the appeals, Shri S.C. Chakraborty, learned Advocate with Shri O.P. Choudury, ld. Advocate did not advance any argument as regards the merits of the case but made a grievance of the fact t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the de novo proceedings, the Commissioner fixed 20-12-1995 as the date for personal hearing. In response to the said notice, the appellants vide their letter dated 18-10-1995 addressed to the Commr., Customs made a request for adjournment by at least 4 week on the various grounds. One of the reasons for seeking 4 weeks adjournment was that since the appellant was stationed in Delhi and was to make arrangements for engaging Senior Counsel, Shri Chakraborty, ld. Advocate argued that in spite of there being request for adjournment by 4 weeks, the next date of hearing was given on 4-1-1996 i.e. after a gap of about 15 days and the notice of hearing was received only on 27-12-1995. As such, he submits that no effective opportunity of personal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. He also submits that the goods being non-notified goods under Section 123 should not be confiscated absolutely and the adjudicating authority should have given an option to the appellants to redeem the same in terms of the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. In support, he relies upon the Madras High Court s decision in the case of R. Sunder v. Deputy Collector of Customs - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 411 (Mad.). On this ground, he seeks quashing of the order remanding it to the adjudicating authority for de novo decision. 6. Countering the arguments Shri R.N. Das, Senior Advocate with Smt. Urmita Dutta, Advocate submits that two opportunities were given to the appellants by fixing different dates of personal hearing. If the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e noted here that it was the appellants who had filed an appeal against the earlier order and by doing so, they cannot be put to greater hardship or in a more adverse position than in which they originally were. The reliance placed by the ld. Advocate on the Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment is well appropriate. Accordingly, in view of this, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo decision with the direction that the adjudicating authority will allow the appellants to cross-examine Shri Basu, if possible and will allow them an opportunity to present their case on the basis of the evidence already on record. If on appreciation of the evidence, the adjudicating authority comes to a decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
