9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms, Custom House, Ahmedabad whereby he confirmed the charges levelled in the show cause notice and imposed penalty under section 112 (b)(i) of the customs Act, 1962. On the ground that the appellant financed Shri Rutugna Trivedi for smuggling of gold from Dubai and sold in India. It was held that the appellant is concerned with selling, purchasing and dealing with the goods for which they knew that the same were liable for confiscation and rendered himself liable to penalty in terms of Section 112 (b) (i) of Customs Act, 1962. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order the appellants filed the present appeals. 2. Shri Hardik Modh, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, at the outset, submits that the impugned order was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his behalf has been made in the appeal of the appellants which was not denied by the respondent in the petition preferred before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. Such letter was not produced at all with the affidavit but handed over to the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court at the time of hearing without any proof of dispatch. The impugned order was passed relying upon the data retrieved from the pen drive which was not supplied to the appellants at all. Therefore, there is breach of principle of natural justice. 2.3 He further submits that the appellants were not granted an opportunity of cross-examination of Ms. Neeta Parmar and Shri Rutungna Trivedi though the data recovered from Ms. Neeta Parmar and statements of both persons were relied upon f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... azes Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI - 2014 (300) ELT 25 (Guj.) 3. Shri Girish Nair, Learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. We find that as per the submission made by learned counsel we are into agreement that there is gross violation of principle of natural justice in passing the impugned order. We find that despite the request made by the appellant, the relied documents have not been supplied to the appellants along with the show cause notice and only inspection was allowed which in our view is not sufficient to enable the party to present their case effectively. The appellants vide th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 138B for the adjudicating authority to use his whims to allow or to disallow the cross-examination. Therefore, the rejection of cross- examination by the adjudicating authority is absolutely contrary to the mandate given in Section 138B.On this issue, we take support from the following decision:- Dharampal Satyapal Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of C.Ex., Gauhati - 2015 (320) ELT 3 (SC) Sameer Shah vs. UOI &Anr - 2022 (6) TMI 534 Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE - 2016 (15) SCC 785 4.3 In view of the above judgments it is mandatory on the part of the adjudicating authority to allow the cross-examination for the fair adjudication of the case. 4.4 We find that the adjudicating authority contended that party cannot seek cross- examinatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
