9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other documentary evidences, both the appellants have been penalised. It is their common grievance that inspite of their specific request for cross examination of witnesses, whose statements have been relied in the issuance of Notice to them, the same was not allowed by the learned Commissioner during the adjudication proceedings, hence the findings recorded against them and imposition of penalty, is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. - reliance placed on the decision of Andman Timber Industries Vs CCE Kolkata II [2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct the same were not exported; also the duty free material imported and indigenously procured for use in the export of these garments were diverted. On completion of investigation, demand notice was issued to M/s Dhanlaxmi on 23.03.2005, for recovery of Customs duty and Central Excise duty and proposal for imposition of penalty on them and other co-noticees, both under Customs Act 1962 under Central Excise Act 1944. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed against M/s Dhanlaxmi with equal amount of penalty and personal penalty of ₹ 4,12,00,000/- was imposed on Shri Parmesh Goyal under Sections 112 and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 and under Rule 209A of Central Excise Act, 1944. ₹ 40,00,000/- lakhs on Shri Nagraj Jain, Proprieto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries Vs CCE Kolkata II 2015 (324) ELT 641 (S.C.). The learned Advocate Shri Willingdon Christian further argues that the learned Commissioner has erred in imposing composite penalty on the Appellant Shri Parmesh Goyal under Section 112 and 114 of Customs Act, 1962 and also under Rule 209A of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, which is contrary to the principle of law laid down in the case of R.G. Agrawal Vs CCE Surat 2007 (210) ELT 274 (Tri-Ahmd.) and in the case of Slotco Steel Products (P) Ltd Vs CCE Delhi-I 2015 (327) ELT 596 (Tri-Del). 4. Per contra, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the learned C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice. 7. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court laying down the principle on the issue for cross examination of witnesses in the case of Andman Timber Industries Vs CCE Kolkata II 2015 (324) ELT 641 (S.C.) observed as:- 6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the assessee dispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
