9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V. Kumar, Advocate for the respondents, M/s Tallaja Impex, Sri K. Sai Prasad and Sri D. Lakshminarayana. Ms. Anjali Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent, M/s ARK Logistics Services (P) Ltd. None appeared for the respondent, Sri B. Nageswara Rao. ORDER PER : M. Veeraiyan 1.1 Appeal Nos. C/1411/10, C/1412/10 and C/1413/10 are filed by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Nos. 23, 24 25/2010 (H-II) Cus dated 31.3.2010 with respondents M/s Tallaja Impex, Shri K. Sai Prasad, Partner of M/s Tallaja Impex and one Shri D. Lakshminarayana. These orders have been passed on appeals of these three respondents against the order of the OriginAal authority No. 71/2009-Cus. dated 3.12.2009. 1.2 The appeal Nos. C/1158/10 and C/1159/10 are against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Nos. 7 8/2010 (H-II) Cus dated 25.2.2010 with M/s ARK Logistics Services (P) Ltd. and Shri B. Nageswara Rao as respondents. The impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) against on appeals by the respondents against the same order of the original authority No. 71/2009-Cus dated 3.12.2009. 1.3 Cro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 111(d) and 111 (f) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 11 ibid, I order the disposal of seized cylinders in terms of Board's letter vide F. No. 711/79/2000 - Cus (AS) dated 26th December 2001. (ii) I impose a penalty of ₹ 2,00,000-00 (Rupees Two lakhs only on M/s Tallaja Impex, Secunderabad under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. (iii) I impose a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000-00 (Rupees One lakh only) on Sri D. Lakshminarayana alias Suresh, Proprietor of M/s Selection Enterprises under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv) I impose a penalty of ₹ 75,000-00 (Rupees Seventy five thousand only) on Sri K. Sai Prasad, Partner of M/s Tallaja Impex under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. (v) I impose a penalty of ₹ 25,000-00 (Rupees Twenty five thousands only) on Sri B. Nageswara Rao, Clearing Executive, M/s ARK Ligistics Services (P) Ltd. under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. (vi) I impose a penalty of ₹ 25,00,000-00 (Rupees Twenty five thousands only) on M/s ARK Logistics Services (P) Ltd. under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3.3 All the respondents filed ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He also submits that the order of the original authority suffers from violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the prayer of cross examination of S/Sri Lakshminarayana, S. Nagalinga Raju and Nageswara Rao as sought by the main importer, M/s Tallaja Impex was denied. The finding of the original authority, that M/s Tallaja Impex was seeking cross examination for the purpose of dragging of the proceedings was factually incorrect. Relying on statement of the said co-accused persons without cross examination is not permissible. In this regard, he relies on decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE Ahmedabad Vs. Chhajusingh S. Kanwal [2011 (272) E.L.T. 202 (Guj.)] and decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of CCE, Meerut-1 Vs. Paramarth Iron Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (260) E.L.T. 514 (All.)] 5.2 The learned Advocate also submits that six of the consignments imported by M/s Tallaja Impex were already cleared after examination by Customs authorities and the statements of examining officers which were in favour of the party have not been appreciated. 5.3.1 The learned Advocate appearing for M/s ARK Logistics Services (P) Ltd. submits t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of co-accused, in my considered opinion, is not necessary. In a quasi judicial proceedings, strict rules of evidence need not to be followed. Cross examination cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Of course, no offence should be established merely based on the statement of third party and without corroborative evidence and without granting cross examination of person whose statement alone is relied upon. In the present case, the importation of 600 gas cylinders stands admitted by Sri D. Lakshminarayana and the same stands corroborated by a partner of M/s Tallaja Impex. In these circumstances, the gas cylinders imported in six consignments are liable for confiscation. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate for the importer, when the goods are not available, the questions of confiscating the same and the disposal of non-available goods by the department do not arise. However, Shri Lakshminarayana and M/s Tallaja Impex, admittedly, have knowingly involved themselves in importing 600 gas cylinders in the past. It is also admitted that they did not have the requisite licence for importing the consignments. Therefore, penalties on them are warranted. 6.2 As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
