9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned order also imposes a penalty of an equal amount under Section 11AC for which a similar plea has been made by the learned Advocate. In addition, he also prays for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed under Rule 173Q. 2. Dealing with the penalty learned Advocate submits in the first instance that no penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed in the first O-in-O. Thereafter the appellants came in appeal before the Tribunal and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority. He submits that in the present impugned order the adjudicating authority has imposed an additional penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs which was not there in the adjudication order. Therefore, imposition of this additional penalty is not at all sustainable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said submissions but these have been brushed aside by the learned Collector by accepting the particulars given in Annexure 'A' of the show cause notice and taking a few examples for the purpose of co-relation of GRs with those in the show cause notice. When the GRs lack relevant particulars showing a linkage with the appellant for each and every GR and in the absence of a detailed discussion, demand of duty cannot be confirmed against the appellants. He, therefore, submits that the stay petition be allowed unconditionally and he has no objection for remand of matter for preparing a detailed statement with the representative of the appellant regarding correlation between the appellant & GRs and GP 1s; only those GRs may be taken into account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellant. We also notice that the department relies on the statement of Bharat Bhushan Sarraf of Transporter Company. We also observe that the Collector after accepting the need for cross-examination of Saraf also issued summons to Bharat Bhushan Saraf. But we find that he was not produced by the Revenue for cross-examination by the appellant. We observe that duty of the Revenue does not end merely by issuing summons to the persons on whose statement it relies, it is the further duty of Revenue to produce them; otherwise the statements given by those persons cannot be relied upon for the purpose of adjudication. We are, therefore, of the view that principles of natural justice are violated by not producing the said witness for cross- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
