9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly on the basis of the statement of its proprietor Riyaz Siddiqui - HELD THAT:- Due to the non-cooperation of the said Riyaz Siddiqui the proceedings before the lower authority gets delayed. Before the Tribunal also the conduct of the said Riyaz Siddiqui is not appreciable. Although appeal has been filed on behalf of his proprietorship concern Suhel Roalines but nobody appeared to assist at the time of hearing. The plea of cross-examination of Riyaz Siddiqui, which is available to other Appellants and due to which the matter was earlier remanded by the Tribunal on 13.4.2012, is not available to M/s. Suhel Roadlines as the said Riyaz Siddiqui is its proprietor - thus, no case has been made out by Suhel Roadlines- Appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/89254, 89258, 89260, 89293/2018 - A/85335-85338/2020 - Dated:- 26-2-2020 - MR. AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate Shri Mohit Raval, Advocate None for the Appellant in Appeal No. E/89293/2018 Shri S.K. Hattangadi, Assistant Commissioner Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER These Appeals have been filed impugning the order dated 16.07.2018 pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in- Original dated 30.3.2010 demand against M/s. Sunrise Textiles was confirmed and penalties were imposed against the Appellants herein under Rule 26 ibid. M/s. Sunrise Textiles did not prefer any appeal against the said order. The Appellants herein against whom penalty was imposed under Rule 26 ibid filed Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the learned Commissioner vide Order-in- Appeal dated 22.7.2010 rejected the same and upheld the Order-in-Original dated 30.3.2010. Being aggrieved, the Appellants herein filed separate Appeals before this Tribunal. Although Suhel Roadlines also filed Appeal but at that time also nobody appeared on its behalf. The main contention of the Appellants were that no opportunity was given to them to cross-examine Riyaz Siddiqui despite the fact that mainly by relying upon his statement only, show cause notice was issued to them and penalty was imposed under Rule 26 ibid. This Tribunal vide order dated 13.4.2012 disposed of the Appeals and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority with a direction to give a cross-examination of Shri Riyaz Siddiqui and other transporter to the appellant and thereafter pass an appropriate order afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s recorded in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of Appeals. He further submits that many chances were given to Mr. Riyaz Siddique to appear but he did not appear. According to him perusal of the records of the case make it clear that the appellants alongwith M/s. Sunrise Textiles connived with Suhel Roadlines, proprietor Mr. Riyaz Siddique to divert the duty free PTY in the domestic market and therefore penalty under Rule 26 has rightly been imposed upon them. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the Appellants and learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and perused the records of the case including the synopsis/ written submissions and the case laws produced by the respective sides. The register which has been seized by DGCEI, Mumbai from the premises of Sunrise Textiles shows the details of the movement of PTY as per the modus of Sunrise Textile but that does not mean that it has been done at the behest or in connivance with the Appellants. For proving the connivance of the Appellants, Revenue relied upon the statement of Mr. Riyaz Siddique, proprietor of Suhel Roadlines. Not only that, the Adjudicating Authority also in its order has observed that the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after remand by the Tribunal. It is in utter violation of the principle of judicial discipline as well as principle of natural justice, still it gets the endorsement of the 1st Appellate Authority i.e. the Commissioner. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities, should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities as laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.; 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C). The Hon ble Supreme Court observed that the order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities unless its operation has been suspended by a competent Court. If this rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assessees and chaos in administration of tax laws. According to me, the Adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry well said that no proper steps were taken by the authorities below to honour the direction of this Tribunal. I deprecate the way the adjudicating authority conducted adjudication. The conduct of the adjudicating authority although invite strictures but I am refraining myself from doing so. So far as Appeal No. E/89293/2013 filed by Suhel Roadlines is concerned, I have already mentioned at the beginning of this order that none appeared on behalf of the said Appellant. The said Suhel Roadlines has been penalized mainly on the basis of the statement of its proprietor Riyaz Siddiqui. Due to the non-cooperation of the said Riyaz Siddiqui the proceedings before the lower authority gets delayed. Before the Tribunal also the conduct of the said Riyaz Siddiqui is not appreciable. Although appeal has been filed on behalf of his proprietorship concern Suhel Roalines but nobody appeared to assist at the time of hearing. The plea of cross-examination of Riyaz Siddiqui, which is available to other Appellants and due to which the matter was earlier remanded by the Tribunal on 13.4.2012, is not available to M/s. Suhel Roadlines as the said Riyaz Siddiqui is its proprietor. In my view no case ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
