9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, as per the view taken by the adjudicating authority as is evident from the order of adjudication that there are sufficient evidence available to justify the imposition of penalty on the noticees. It is true that the adjudicating authority has stated that this defence which is available corroborates the statement given by the third parties under Section 108 of the Act. Thus, if according to the adjudicating authority, there is enough evidence to pin down the respondent dehors the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Act, this Court fails to understands as to why the adjudicating authority should place reliance upon the statement under Section 108 of the Act. Considering various factors more particularly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd HON BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. K.K. Maiti, Adv. Mr. Tapan Bhanja, Adv.. For the Respondent in CUSTA/7/2022 : Mr. Agnibesh Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Jaydeb Ghorai, Adv. Mr. Diptesh Ghorai, Adv.. The Court : We have heard Mr. K.K. Maiti, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. Tapan Bhanja, learned advocate appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Agnibesh Sengupta, learned counsel for the respondent in CUSTA/7/2022. These bunch of appeals can be divided into two categories. The first being MAT/556/2019 which was filed by the Department challenging the correctness of the order in WP 25447(w)/2018 dated 1st February, 2019. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent in MA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -noticees who were also imposed with penalty by the common order of adjudication dated 6th September, 2018. Those co-noticees did not file a writ petition but availed the statutory remedy of appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal by separate orders had followed the order passed by the learned Writ Court in WP 25447(w)/2018 dated 1st February, 2019 and allowed the appeals and remanded the matters with the same direction as issued by the learned Writ Court. Aggrieved by the such orders, the revenue has preferred appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act raising the following substantial questions of law. (i) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed the gross error of law by not dealing with the appeal on merits an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere recorded is also a common question in all these cases, the intra-court appeal as well as the statutory appeals filed by the revenue were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. On several dates the matter was heard and elaborate submissions were made by the learned standing counsel appearing for the revenue and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in MAT/556/2019 and the other advocates appearing for the other respondents. The short question would be as to whether the adjudicating authority was right in refusing to grant an opportunity of cross-examination of third parties from whom statements have been recorded which have been referred to and relied upon in the adjudication order which wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent. In our considered view, the necessity to answer the question of law arises for consideration in these appeals may not arise on account of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, as per the view taken by the adjudicating authority as is evident from the order of adjudication that there are sufficient evidence available to justify the imposition of penalty on the noticees. It is true that the adjudicating authority has stated that this defence which is available corroborates the statement given by the third parties under Section 108 of the Act. Thus, if according to the adjudicating authority, there is enough evidence to pin down the respondent dehors the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Act, this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents are directed to submit their additional reply clearly pointing out that the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Act cannot be relied upon to frame the noticees and the respondents shall submit their additional reply on the alleged evidence which is stated to be available with the Department as mentioned in the order of adjudication. The respondents are directed to submit their reply within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order. On receipt of the reply, the adjudicating authority is directed to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the authorised representative of the respondent and adjudicate the case afresh. We make it clear that while adjudicating the case afresh, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
