9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on their contention that attestation could well establish the consequence claimed by the appellants, the criticality of cross examination is evident. Even if it were not so, it was incumbent upon the adjudicating authority to dispose off the request for cross-examination. Evaluation of the resultant evidence may well have provided stronger grounds than the impugned order contains. The course of justice will be best served by setting aside the impugned order, save that portion pertaining to absolute confiscation of the goods, and remanding the matter back to the original authority for a fresh decision after dealing with the request of the appellants for cross-examination of the assessing officers of the impugned consignments and other evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso proceeded against the imports effected against fifty bills of entry that had been filed between 2001 and 2004 with consequential duty liability of ₹ 1,98,72,930/-, along with interest thereon besides imposing fine of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- on redemption of those goods valued at ₹ 4,41,62,068/-. In addition to penalties of ₹ 50,00,000/- on the two proprietary concerns, he contends that further penalty of ₹ 50,00,000/- each has been imposed on the present two appellants. 3. Clarifying that they had all along refused to assume ownership of the two containers that had been seized, Learned Counsel reiterates that disclaimer and denies any connection with the said goods which is claimed to have been shipped erroneous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Calcutta in Ankit Kapoor v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata [2018(362) ELT 401 (Cal.), of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Ciabro Alemao v. Commissioner of Customs, Goa [2018 (362) ELT 465 (Bom)], Nirmal Seeds Pvt Ltd v. Union of India [2017 (350) ELT 486 (Bom)], USMS Saffron Co. Inc. v. Union of India [2017 (346) ELT 582 (Bom.)], of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in K. Srinivasulu v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai III [2017 (345) ELT 477 (Mad.)], of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in HIM Logistics Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner of Customs [2016 (336) ELT 15 (Del.)] and of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Mahek Glazes Pvt Ltd v. Union of India [2014 (300) ELT 25 (Guj.)], all of which insist t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Mani Bhadras Trading Co. v. CC (Seaports Exports), Chennai [2010 (251) ELT 194 (Mad.)] which has held that there is no breach of principles of natural justice if persons who are possession of information are not subjected to cross examination which, according to her, is more relevant in the circumstances of the present dispute than the decisions cited by Learned Counsel which pertain to statements that were relied upon in the proceedings. On the issue of retracted statements, she contends that the cautionary advice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K I Pavunny v. Asst Collr (HQ), C.Ex. Collectorate, Cochin [1997 (90) ELT 241 (SC)] and of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Assist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 07.06.2004. This fact alone proved the complicity of Shri Prem Bhandari without any trace of doubt. Hence, the retraction of his statements at a later stage, as submitted in the Advocate s written submission dated 29.3.05 does not hold any ground. The case laws 2007 (214 0 ELT 19 (Tri LB) in the CESTAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in GOPAL INDUSTRIES LTD v/s COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE and on Hon'ble Supreme Court s decision in OM PRAKASH BHATIA v/s COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, DELHI 2003 (155) ELT 423 (SC) held that retraction of statement rightly held as after-thought by adjudicating authority . to suffice for refusal of cross-examination. It is also admitted that the cross-examination sought for is of officers an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d stronger grounds than the impugned order contains. Though applying to a criminal trial, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan [2019 SCC Online SC 39] offers an indisputable guide even in matters that are concerned with tax especially as the goods themselves are beyond the scope of examination at this late stage. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in re Syed Irfan Mohammed, insisting on some physical evidence in the light of concealed clearance by the proper officers, offers equally compelling justification. 6. In view of the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the course of justice will be best served by setting aside the impugned order, save that portion p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
