9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the declared transaction value and loading of the same and on this basis, recovery of differential duty along with interest, confiscation of the goods under the provisions of Section 111(m) and 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 and also imposition of penalty on the appellant under Section 112 as well as Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. 1.1 Among the evidences relied upon in support of this allegation is the statement of one Shri Rakesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. Rakesh Oil Traders, an indenter-cum-broker of the foreign suppliers and also the report of Chemical Examiner of Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL). In the above-mentioned show cause notice, Shri Rakesh Kumar the indenter-cum-broker has also been show caused for imposition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itnesses and the Commissioner's order refusing the cross-examination does not deal with the same, that the appellant also rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of New Decent Footwear Industries v. Union of India - 2002 (150) E.L.T. 71 (Del.) and of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Hindustan Polyester Lines - 2009 (236) E.L.T. 44 (P & H), wherein Hon'ble High Courts have held that denial of cross-examination of the witnesses on whose evidence the allegation against the assessee is based, would amount to violation of principles of natural justice, that the Commissioner's reasoning that the cross-examination of Shri Rakesh Kumar cannot be allowed as in terms of Article 20(3) of the Indian Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refusing the cross-examination of the witnesses are correct and that as such, there is no infirmity in the impugned decisions of the Commissioner. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions from the both the sides and perused the records. 4. Under Section 129A(1)(a) any person aggrieved by a decision or order passed by Commissioner of Customs as an Adjudicating Authority can file appeal to the appellate Tribunal. In this case, the Commissioner's letters addressed to the appellants refusing the cross-examination of certain witnesses are certainly the decisions taken by him as Adjudicating Authority. In view of this, I do not accept the Revenue's plea with the letters dated 2-8-2010 and 10-8-2010 of the Commissioner are not ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India reported in 2001 (136) E.L.T. 9 (Bom.) has held that at the stage of adjudication it is the right of an assessee to seek cross-examination of the witnesses, whose statements are sought to be relied upon by the Revenue and that the cross-examination is necessary so that it could be established as to whether the statements recorded from the said witnesses had been voluntarily given, or whether the same are based on personal knowledge or legal records or on hearsay. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gyan Chand Sant Lal Jain v. Union of India (supra) after distinguishing the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kanungo & Co. v. CC (supra) held that if in course of adjudication proceedings, cross-examination of some persons wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
