9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacture of final product and the said final product was exported. The claim of the appellant is that since the final product has been exported, the export obligation required for EOU has been fulfilled therefore no duty demand can be confirmed. However the Commissioner has not given any findings on this issue. For this reason also the principles of natural justice was violated. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that matter needs to be re-considered by the Adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand. - APPEAL No.C/1161/04 C/31/05, C/80/05 - ORDER No.A/93965-93967/16/CB. - Dated:- 17-11-2016 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. Shri. Prasad Paranjape, Advocate fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... porters, I order confiscation of the bond executed in this regard. I give an option to the importers to redeem the same on payment of fine of ₹ 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Iakhs only) under Section 125 of the said Act. 2. I order that the customs duty amounting to ₹ 30,92,998/- be recovered along with interest 20% per annum on the said duty from the date of duty free importation till the date of payment of such duty. The amount of ₹ 30,99,9981/- paid by M/s. Gandhi Fibers vide TR 6 challan No.2/ 05.04.2002 on 06.04.2002 Should be adjust towards this duty 3. 3) I order confiscation of the 6 trucks bearing registration No. .MH 04H 4748, GJ 5U 1837, MI-I 04H 9495, MMK 151, GJ 5T 0125 and GJ 5U 3291 under Section 115 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals. 2. Shri. Prasad Paranjape, Ld. Counsel for the appellant M/s. Gandhi Fibre at the outset submits that for confirmation of duty demand and confiscation of the goods. Ld. Commissioner has relied upon statements of various persons including transporter, Shri. Alfaz Arifbhai Motiwala, partner of M/s. Kadri Texturisers, owner of truck, Shri. Shah Lalji Versi Savla, Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Clerk of M/s. Excellent Road Carriers etc. The appellant have strongly requested the adjudicating authority for cross examination of the various aforesaid persons but the same was not allowed by the adjudicating authority therefore the principles of natural justice has been violated. He further submits that entire case was made out on the assumption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 10% of value of goods Electron Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2014 (307) E.L.T. 746 Durgabhai Deshmukh Hospital Research Centre vs. CC, Hyderabad - 2011 (272) E.L.T. 300 (Tri. - Bang.). 3. Shri. M.K. Mall, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 5. We find that the entire case of duty demand and confiscation of the goods was made out on the basis of statements of various persons. Therefore in our view looking to the nature of the case the cross examination as was requested by the appellant ought to have been granted to the appellant in the interest of jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
