9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments are already supplied or already available with appellants. The appellants were insisting on supply of documents whereas revenue believed all documents are supplied/ available with appellant. we find that Revenue has made all efforts and provided all the documents necessary to the appellant to enable the cross-examination Shri N J Lalwani. in the impugned order, goes item wise and gives evidence that the documents being asked by the appellant are already in their possession and have been given, in some cases at numerous times. We have examined the facts stated in the impugned order. We hold that all necessary documents have been provided to the appellant. In the interest of justice, we give one last opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine Shri N J Lalwani. From the record, it is apparent that there was a deliberate delay on the part of the appellant to cross-examine the Shri N J Lalwani. The reasons why shri N J Lalwani change his strance will be helpful in reaching proper conclusion in this case. In this background, in the interest of justice we set aside the order and remand the matter back to the Commissioner. The commissioner will give two dates for cross-examina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said equipment were installed in China and 7 Blades were manufactured for passing the test phase of the equipment and thereafter 150 bladeswere commercially produced and supplied to Gamesa China.Later, upon Gamesha‟s request, the set of 3 equipment were imported into India for manufacture and supply of same model of rotor blades to Gamesa India. In support of their claim that they had manufactured and supplied 150 Blades, the appellant submitted sample invoices and delivery challans along with the appeal papers. The said 3 equipment i.eSBM, TC, BSLD were imported into India. The SBM was declared as used goods and same was cleared without any objection by custom authorities inIndia. However, when TC and BSLD was imported declaring the same as used goods the present dispute was raised. In support of their claim that the goods are used/second hand, a Chartered Engineer Certificate was obtained in terms of Circular No. 25/2015-Cus dated 15.10.2015. 5. According to the inspection report under taken by Shri N J Lalwani, and a Government approved valuer and CE, it was certified that the imported goods are in used condition. However, later, on Shri N J Lalwani withdrew his initial fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny the benefit of SHIS(Status Holder Incentive Scehme) on the ground that the goods imported by them did not relate toplastic sector. The appellant had obtained the SHIS Scheme from M/s. SR Steel India Ltd under Notification No. 104/2009 dated 14.09.2009. Para 3.16.3 of Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 provide the use of SHIS Scrips in specific terms listed in the said policy. The appellant had claimed benefit from the imported cradle under plastic sector. 6. In view of above, the appellant sought cross-examination of the Chartered Engineer Shri Lalwani. The appellant filed an interim reply seeking certain documents before filing a final reply and before cross examination of Shri N J Lalwani, two opportunities were given to the appellant for cross examination of N J Lalwani, on 21.12.2017, and again on 21.12.2017. The appellant did not avail the opportunity of cross-examination of the pretext that they did not supply certain documents. The impugned order examines in detail all the documents which the appellant had sought for and given detail explanation to show that the said documents were either already supplied to the appellant or were in custody of the appellant as it appellant f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The same was in the form of his self-statement. It was supplied to the noticee vide letter dated 28.07.2016. Thereafter, the noticee asked for certificate in Form-B, Ref No. NJL/Kandla/15-16 dated 16.10.2015 for which department informed them that it was not relied upon. It was again demanded by the noticee and I instructed for supply of the same, It was supplied to them vide letter dated 29.12.2017. (iv) Next: document, appearing at serial number 5 of that table, is a panchnama evidencing that examination of goods was carried out by Shri N. J. Lalwani, Chartered Engineern Vide letter dated 14.09.2016, it was informed by SIIB section of this office that certificate has already been provided to them. vide letter dated 28.07.2016, I find from the records available before me that no such panchnama was drawn and there is no mention of such panchname in the show cause notice. (v) The demanded document appearing at serial number 10 of that table, is list of 150 blades claimed to be produced in China, The documents appearing at serial number 11 of that table, are photographs claimed to be of installation of the imported cradle in China. The documents appearing at serial number ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Assistant Commissioner (SIIB), Custom House, Kandla. However, vide letter dated 14.12.2017, the notices has again demanded the same. (viii) Next document, appearing at serial number 31 of that table, is copy of Demand Draft No. 119055 dated 11.05.2015. The said demand draft was submitted by the noticee. Therefore, copy of the same must be available with them. However, the department supplied copy of the said demand draft vide letter dated 28.07.2016 but, it was again demanded by the noticee vide letter dated 08.08.2016. It was again supplied to them by the department vide letter dated 14.09.2016. However, it was again demanded by the noticee vide letter dated 14.12.2017. I do not find any logic in requisition of photocopy of demand draft, which was submitted by themselves, again and again. (ix) Next document, appearing at serial number 32 of that table, is copy of letter F. No. S/43-13/SUB/2015-16 dated 15.01.2016. Photocopy of the said letter was provided to the noticee vide letter dated 28.07.2016. However, the noticee again demanded the same and it was again provided vide letter dated 14.09.2016. However, vide letter dated 14.11.2017, the noticee again requeste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that copies of the same documents were demanded again and again by the noticee. (xiii) Next document, appearing at serial number 36 of that table, is copy of carlier certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer which is claimed to have been cancelled. I find that the noticee was informed that the said certificate was not relied upon by the department and hence the same was not supplied to them. I also find that copy of the said certificate was available with the noticee as they have also claimed in their reply (said to be interim reply) that they were having copy of the said certificate being provided by the Chartered Engineer and it was also submitted before Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 20487 of 2015. When copy of the certificate was available with them there was no point for demanding the same from the department and stalling the adjudication proceedings for the same. However, as a matter of natural justice, I took up the matter and on my directions, a copy of the same was again supplied to them during the adjudication proceedings. (xiv) Next document, appearing at serial number 37 of that table, is letter dated 03.12.2015 issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examination of Shri N.J. Lalwani, however prior to cross examination they wanted certain documents. There was a lot of correspondence about the fact if the documents are already supplied or already available with appellants. The appellants were insisting on supply of documents whereas revenue believed all documents are supplied/ available with appellant. From Para 6 above, we find that Revenue has made all efforts and provided all the documents necessary to the appellant to enable the cross-examination Shri N J Lalwani. Para 3.2 of the impugned order, goes item wise and gives evidence that the documents being asked by the appellant are already in their possession and have been given, in some cases at numerous times. 9. We have examined the facts stated in para 3.2 of the impugned order. We hold that all necessary documents have been provided to the appellant. In the interest of justice, we give one last opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine Shri N J Lalwani. From the record, it is apparent that there was a deliberate delay on the part of the appellant to cross-examine the Shri N J Lalwani. The reasons why shri N J Lalwani change his strance will be helpful in reaching p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
