9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. v. UOI (2005 (3) TMI 161 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD) - Decided in favour of assessee. - C/283-287, 292-294, 296-299/2012, C/10477-10486, 10585-10586 & 10692-10724/2013 - Final Order Nos. A/11007-11063/2013-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 5-8-2013 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) and H.K. Thakur, Member (T) Shri P.M. Dave and Akshay Anand, Advocates, for the Appellant. Dr. J. Nagori, Addl. Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER These appeals have been filed by the following appellants against various Orders-in-Original issued by Commissioner of Customs, Kandla. S. N. Appeal No. Name of the appellant Referred to as 1. C/283/2012 C/284/2012 C/285/2012 Shri Rajkumar Mundhra, 3162, Kantinagar, Delhi-110051 Appellant No. 1 C/286/2012 C/287/2012 C/292/2012 C/293/2012 C/294/2012 C/296/2012 C/297/2012 C/298/2012 C/299/2012 2. C/10477/2013 C/10480/2013 C/10483/2013 C/10485/2013 C/10692/2013 C/10695/2013 C/10698/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the appeals filed by the present appellants and others were again remanded back to CC, Kandla under Order Nos. A/1073-1160/WZB/AHD/2011, dated 16-6-2011 by passing the following order :- 11. After appreciating the submissions made by both sides, we note that the entire case of the Revenue is based upon the allegations and findings of the advance licences being tampered by the importers. It is also a fact that the goods were cleared by the Customs Officers against the same tampered documents. As such, it becomes necessary for the Revenue to supply the said relied upon documents to the present appellants, so as to enable them to make submission in respect of the same. Admittedly, what have been supplied to the appellants are the original advance licences. We have perused some of the advance licences produced before us, which are in the name of original licence holders and reflecting the original description, value and quantity of the goods. Such documents will not be of any use to the appellants inasmuch as the allegations are as regards the tempering of the same. As such, we fully agree with the learned advocate that the tampered advance licences which stands relied upon in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n proceedings or filed appeals before CESTAT. During the last remand proceedings, as per CESTAT order dated 16-6-2011, the copies of forged/tampered advance licences were directed to be provided to the appellant along with cross-examination of some officers. The adjudicating authority made some efforts to obtain the copies of forged/tampered advance licences from DRI and ultimately came to the conclusion that such forged/tampered advance licences were never recovered during the investigation and that the same were also not relied upon documents in the show cause notices. Accordingly, the appellants were informed that forged/tampered advance licences are not available and also that the cross-examination of the Customs officers was not necessary and will not serve any purpose. The adjudicating authority passed the impugned order imposing penalties upon the appellants by ignoring the directions given by CESTAT against which present appeals have been filed by the appellants. 3. Shri P.M. Dave, ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that the directions given by the CESTAT under Order dated 16-6-2011 regarding supply of copies of forged/tampered advance licences has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uced before them at the material time. The basic issue today is only whether the persons in question i.e. Shri Shantilal Jain, Shri Devkumar Kapta, M/s. Kandla Clearing Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Rajkumar Mundhra, facilitated evasion of duty by their acts of commission/omission . If yes, they are liable to penalty. If not, they go scot free. The supply of documents (i.e. forged license) and cross-examination of officers, in my humble opinion is not necessary to decide this issue. I feel that in this case, it is necessary to appreciate the total evidence adduced by DRI and one should not limit himself to only one aspect, i.e. forged/tampered license as has been contended by the defence before the Hon ble CESTAT. 6. From the above order passed by adjudicating authority, it is observed that the order has been passed by totally ignoring the direction given in the order dated 16-6-2011 passed by CESTAT. If adjudicating authority had any reservations about the non-execution of directions given by CESTAT, then either a suitable modification application should have been filed against the remand order before CESTAT or an appeal should have been filed by the Revenue before the appropriat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee company which manufactured and sold sugar used sugarcane purchased from other cultivators as well as grown in its own farms. It claimed deduction of agricultural income from its total income by valuing the sugarcane grown in its own farm at market value and deducting therefrom the agricultural expenses. In appeal the Tribunal directed the Income Tax Officer to ascertain the average transport charges from the purchasing centres to the assessee s factory and after adding to it the rate of purchase in order to ascertain the market value give any relief that may be due to the assessee. The said order was challenged by way of Reference Application by Revenue but the Reference was withdrawn and the order of the Tribunal became final. On the assessee applying to the Income Tax Officer to give effect to the directions of the Tribunal, the officer wrote to the assessee that no relief could be given to it. The assessee challenged the same in appeal and it was held by the Appellate Authority that the officer had acted arbitrarily and in clear violation of the directions given by the Tribunal, but proceeded to consider the correctness of the Tribunal s order and held that there wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
