9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stice by the lower authority while passing the impugned order inasmuch as that no opportunity was given to the appellants to cross examine some of the noticees and secondly all the submissions made on behalf of the appellants were not properly considered. 4. Secondly, on the ground that the authority below failed to consider that there was no conscious effort on the part of the appellants to make any mis-statement or to suppress the facts and that the appellants had no knowledge about the incorrect forms furnished by the exporter. 5. Thirdly, on the ground that the appellants would suffer undue financial hardship if the appellants are directed to deposit the entire amount ordered to pay under the impugned order. In that connection, atte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noticees did not appear for cross-examination. 10. A specific query into the purpose for which the said noticees were required for cross-examination, the Ld. Advocate submitted that the appellants wanted to prove their innocence and their non-involvement in the alleged mis-declaration and/or suppression of the fact. It was, however, admitted that none of the statements of those noticees or persons, whom the appellants wanted to cross-examine had made any statement adverse to the interest of the appellants. As to whether any of their statements have been specifically relied upon and/or made the sole basis for holding the appellants responsible for the misdeclaration and/or suppression of the fact, the Ld. Advocate did not point out any su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preme Court in the case of UOI v. GTC Industries Ltd, reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 244 (S.C.) the Tribunal had interfered in the order passed by the lower authorities in GTC case and held that an adverse finding could not have been recorded against GTC by relying upon the oral submissions made by a co-noticee at the hearing without any supporting material on record, providing due opportunity to GTC to meet the same . Obviously the decision of the Tribunal was on totally different set of fact. 12. In the case in hand, in the absence of reason being disclosed merely because some of the noticees were not available for cross-examination that could not amount to failure on the part of the authority to comply with the principles of natural ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation . 13. Considering the law laid down by the Delhi High Court in this aspect and clear finding arrived at by the lower authority regarding the failure of the appellants in their obligation resulting in loss to the exchequer, we, prima facie, do not find any case having been made out for grant of stay or waiver of the amount demanded under the impugned order. 14. It is also sought to be contended that directions to deposit the entire amount will cause financial hardship to the appellants. Mere allegation in this regard, without disclosure of facts which could reveal financial hardship, cannot suffice for grant of waiver of the amount demanded vide the impugned order. Whether it results in financial hardship or not would depend upon t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
