9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we find that the disputed issue in the present appeals is alleged over valuation of consignments of carpets/floor coverings to be exported by first 3 appellants for which they filed shipping bills. The Revenue seized the same under the cover of panchnama in the presence of panch witnesses. They also sought expert opinion of Textile Committee, as also from Carpet Export Promotion Council and opinion of Committee of Cost Accountants. On the basis of the same, it was alleged that the appellants have overvalued their export products with malafide intention to claim higher drawback and gain benefit of excess exports. 3. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated against them by way of issuance of show cause notice. It is seen that during adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y before the Tribunal, cross examination could not be conducted. Another advocate, Shri Udit Jain who is attached with advocate, Shri Anand caused appearance before adjudicating authority on the said date i.e.22.8.2012 and explained that as they have received intimation for cross examination only in the evening of 21.8.2012 and it is not possible to conduct cross examination on 22.8.2012, another date be fixed. 4. The Commissioner, however, in para 21.3 of the impugned order held that on 22.8.2012, the hearing was fixed for cross examination and departmental officers appeared on that date so as to tender for cross examination. Inasmuch as the appellants did not appear to conduct cross examination on 22.8.2012, he proceeded to decide the is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd to intimate the same to the appellants, about the reasons for change of his mind not to grant cross examination of experts to the appellants. In any case, we find that even on 22.8.2012 the customs officers were tendered for cross examination and there was no reference of panch witnesses. Further, we also find that there is force in the contention of the appellants they have received fax message for cross examination only in the evening of 21.8.2012 intimating that the adjudicating authority has allowed cross examination which would be taken on 22.8.2012. One day prior notice for conducting cross examination cannot be held to be a sufficient notice to the advocate as also to the party who were located in Amritsar. In any case, we find th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discussion, we find that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. As such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem fit to set aside the impugned and remand the matter to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication. 8. Needless to say that the adjudication would be completed following basic principles of natural justice. The appellants' request for cross examination of various persons would be considered by him and due intimation about the same would be given to the appellants well in advance so to enable them to cause appearance before him. 9. Before we part, we would like to observe that though only stay petitions are listed today but we have decided to take up the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
