9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1001X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Videocon International Ltd. had imported two consignments of machinery vide Bills of Entry No. 13053 and 13056 both dated 29-8-97 at Mumbai Port. The information stated that the Bill of Entry No. 13053 was declared to contain automatic electronic parts, vertical coils and Bill of Entry No. 13056 was declared to contain flattening machine. These Bills of Entry were assessed in the Custom House in September, 1997. However, since the cargo contained excess quantity as well as misdeclared items, the importer was not coming forward for examination of cargo even though more than four months had passed since the documents were assessed. Acting on the above information, the office premises of the importer were searched and some documents were seiz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up on behalf of applicants to collect the documents on 24-1-2002. It was clarified by the applicants under letter dated 19-5-2003, which till date was not responded to by the DRI. By the said letter dated 19-5-2003, the applicants also forwarded the copy of the re-warehousing Certificate dated 16-9-1998 of the local Central Excise/Customs authorities, Aurangabad, evidencing the transfer of the subject imported equipments to the 100% EOU. The preliminary objection was that the applicants were not granted inspection and the copies of the important documents relied upon by the DRI were not supplied to them. Their request for cross-examination of the Panel Experts, whose report dated 19-1-1998 was relied upon by the Department in the show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... request of the applicants for cross-objection yet he has neither confirmed nor rejected nor given any finding for the refusal of the cross-examination of the witnesses/persons referred to above. The learned Advocate of the applicants has further contended that although the matter was finally heard on 7-7-2008 but the impugned order was passed on 30th December, 2008 and issued on 9-1-2009 i.e. the impugned order was passed after a period of 5½ months of the completion of the proceedings without any reasons for delay. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai - 2008 (232) E.L.T. 780 (Bom.) = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 11 (Bom.), wherein t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
