TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endent witnesses was turned down by an order dated April 6, 2017 and, though the petitioner renewed the prayer to cross-examine the relevant witnesses in course of the personal hearing afforded by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, the decision to decline such opportunity was not challenged. Further, as the departmental and Tribunal orders indicate, the initial stand of the petitioner was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JJ. Shri N. Dasgupta, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Dr. N. Mozika, Senior Advocate and Ms. T. Sutnga, Advocate, for the Respondent JUDGMENT Two principal grounds have been raised by the petitioner for assailing an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on March 11, 2020. 2. By the impugned order, the goods apparently seized from the possession ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery was made from the person of the petitioner and after the investigation was over but before the Tribunal considered the matter, the petitioner, through Advocate, suggested that the goods may have been discovered from elsewhere in the vehicle and not from the person of the petitioner. In the relevant letter issued by Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, a request was also made for the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... says that such assertion made in April, 2017 was contrary to the petitioner's statement made before the appropriate authorities in August, 2016. The seizure was made in June, 2016. 6. The petitioner's request for cross-examining the independent witnesses was turned down by an order dated April 6, 2017 and, though the petitioner renewed the prayer to cross-examine the relevant witnesses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso make clear that the criminal court will not be unduly influenced by the findings rendered in the order impugned against the petitioner in course of assessing the criminal charges against the petitioner. 8. The order impugned dated March 11, 2020 does not call for any interference since cogent grounds have been indicated therein upon relevant considerations having been taken into account. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|