9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsolve the Appellant on the basis of his denial about the fact of arranging foreign exchange transaction overseas yet having admitted other transactions. He found that the whole case was based on seized documents and its explanation offered by the concerned persons and contemporaneous evidences. The plea of the Appellant that in his statement u/s 40 of FERA 1973, he did not admit arranging for foreign exchange transaction on payment of Indian Rupees by Shri Keshav Bangur does not cut much ice in face of seizure of crucial documents from the residence of Shri Bangur and his explanation thereof which have been corroborated by the statements of Shri Prakash Khaitan and Shri AK Jain on certain material facts. The findings of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in the impugned Order cannot be disturbed. Appellant expired on 28.03.2008 and his widow has substituted the Appellant as legal heir. We further note that 20% of the amount of penalty has been pre-deposited. The Appeal was filed on 28.01.2005 and has remained pending for almost 19 years even though having been reserved for orders thrice on 08.10.2014, 13.08.2015 and 21.04.2016. In view of these attenuating factors and in the interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , however, in his statement denied having arranged any funds either in India or abroad. He admitted having met Shri Keshav Bangur who came to his residence with Shri Prakash Khaitan as well as about an entry in the documents seized from the residence of Shri Bangur which evidenced loan of Rs 70,00,000/-from his company to that of Shri Bangur. The fact of sale of shares of Bank of Rajasthan to Shri Bangur was confirmed by Shri AK Jain in his letter dated 28.07.1997. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant contended, during the course of final hearing on 06.03.2024, that the principles of natural justice have been violated and the opportunity of cross-examination has been denied in the adjudication proceedings. He pleaded that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority did not allow the cross-examination of Shri Keshav Bangur. He cited the judgment dated 17.09.2015 of Delhi High Court in the matter of Flevel International v. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 294/52 GST 827/[CEAC 6 of 2013]. The judgment (supra) has observed that the denial of the opportunity of the cross-examination is to be as an exception, otherwise it would vitiate the order of adjudication. He further cited the judgment dated 29-10-2015 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or of the date of hearing of the proceedings was served upon the petitioner. Since the petitioner chose not to participate in the proceedings, the question of making over documents by the authorities relied upon at the hearings of the petitioner does not arise. Had the petitioner participated in the proceedings he would not have been made over the documents at the hearing. The request for cross-examination also is of no assistance as the petitioner was not present in the hearing to undertake the cross-examination of the witness on behalf of the authorities. 7. In view of a number of opportunities having been given by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority during the course of adjudication proceedings, of which a large number of such opportunities were not availed, on this ground there has been no violation of principles of natural justice. In fact, the circumstances narrated by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the Writ Petition filed by Shri Keshav Bangur as quoted above, were more or less the same circumstances which also apply in the present Appeal filed by the Appellant. 8. It is a matter of record that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has not allowed cross-examination during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch being the case, the refusal of the adjudicating authority to permit cross-examination of the witnesses producing the documents cannot even on the principles of the Evidence Act be found fault with. At any rate, the disclosure of the documents to the appellants and the opportunity given to them to rebut and explain the same was a substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice. That being so there was and could be no prejudice to the appellants nor was any demonstrated by the appellants before us or before the courts below. The third limb of the case of the appellants also in that view fails and is rejected. 10. Ld. Adjudicating Authority has dealt with the request of cross- examination by the Appellant. He has denied the same since the statements of other co-noticees and documents seized from the residence of Shri Keshav Bangur have been shared with the Appellant as is obvious from the Annexure A to the SCN. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted above squarely apply to the circumstances and facts of the present case. The question is whether failure to permit the Appellant to cross-examine has resulted in any prejudice so as to call for reversal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
