9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate for Appellant Shri Gyanendra Kr. Tripathi, Asstt. Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 34/COMM./M-II/2010 dated 14/03/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Meerut-II. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant were issued with a show cause notice dated 07th January, 1992. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through Order-in-Original No.35/Collector/95 dated 18.04.1995 passed by Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Meerut. Aggrieved by the said order, present appellant preferred appeal before this Tribunal. This Tribunal decided the said Appeal bearing No.C/411,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty in relation to M/s KHL and Shri Chandulal inasmuch as the contra findings recorded by the Bangalore Customs Collector on the same questions of facts were accepted by the Department. There is much force in this argument. However, we are not inclined to take the cue from this argument and head for further findings as we have at once come across a conspicuous element of violation of natural justice in the impugned order. The request of M/s HMT Ltd. to cross-examine Nagin Kothari and Sunil Kothari was rejected as irrelevant by the adjudicating authority. However, their relevance was noted by the Collector of Customs in the impugned Order vide para (47.2) thereof. para (47.2) reads:- Shri M. Srinivas, Managing Director, KHL was alleged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of Ranjit Kanunga, Devi Chand and Suresh Shah, floated 8 fictitious/front firms from where a sum of ₹ 6,54,33,546.79 was siphoned out of KHL. The stand of Shri M. Srinivas and Ranjit Kanunga that supplies were effected by on Shri Chandulal of Bombay was a figment of their imagination. No such person by the name of Chandulal existed and only to cover-up the illicit procurement of IB cases supplied, Chandulal was created. In fact, it appeared more likely that the recipient of the funds was Nagin Kothari and/or Sunil Kothari who, on more than one occasion, visited Munnier along with M. Srinivas. It was preposterous to say that M. Srinivas had met the said Chandulal, if any, only on one occasion when he had procured goods worth over & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d an opportunity of cross-examining Nagin Kothari and Sunil Kothari if the authority wants to look into their role in the case. 7. It is also noted that, though the appellants request to cross-examine Nikunj Shah and Irfan Sheriff was allowed by the Collector, neither of them turned up for being cross-examined. The statements of both these persons have been heavily relied on in the impugned order. Now that the case is being remanded, we are of the view that a further opportunity to cross-examine the two persons must be given to the party. 8. For the reasons we have recorded, the impugned order is set aside and these appeals are allowed by way of remand. The jurisdictional Commisisoner is directed to adjudicate the case afresh in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned Counsel further submitted that this Tribunal s direction to cross-examine Shri Nagin Kothari, Shri Sunil Kothari and Shri Irfan Sheriff were not followed by the Original Authority and further Original authority has given finding that carrying out or not carrying out cross-examination of a person would not lead to any infirmity in accepting the facts stated by that person is amounting to adjudication by lower authority on the directions of Higher Appellate Authority and therefore, the impugned Order-in-Original is bad in law. 4. Heard the learned A.R. who has supported the impugned Order-in-Original. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the directions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
