|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 2047 Records
-
2017 (12) TMI 175 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Valuation of imported goods - Alloy Wheels as also Car Truck tyres of various brands - rejection of declared value - whether clearances of goods by paying customs duty on the higher enhanced assessable value, precludes the assessee from challenging the same before the higher appellate forum? - Held that: - It is a matter of common experience that the importers, clear the goods, by payment of duty on the enhanced value, inasmuch as the goods imported by them are required and cannot be allowed to be retained by the Customs as the same incurr demurrage and other expenses. It is again a fact of common knowledge that settlement of dispute take years and the imported goods cannot be allowed to be deteriorated in quality till the final out-come of the dispute - Inasmuch as the goods imported by the appellant were required in the assessee's factory, the same were cleared by them on payment of the duty on enhanced value and this fact by itself cannot be adopted as a ground for resolving the disputed issue of valuation - payment of duty at the enhanced value and clearance of the goods in urgency cannot preclude the assessee from challenging the assessed bill of entry on the sole ground that goods stand cleared at the enhanced value.
Valuation - enhancement of value - Held that: - Revenue has not adduced any evidence to show flow of any under hand consideration to the supplier of the goods - As per the settled law, the transaction value has to be adopted as correct assessable value for the purposes of payment of duty unless the same is proved to be incorrect, on the basis of positive and tangible evidences - transaction value has to be adopted as the correct assessable value.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 174 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Refund claim - payment under protest - Whether, challenge or contest of the assessment order is condition precedence for claiming the refund of duty, especially in view of the fact that the duty was paid under protest, for non-consideration of the request of appellant for extending the benefit of N/N. 3/2005-C.E., dated 24.02.2005 by the authorities below, before assessment of the Bills of Entry? - Held that: - a refund claim shall lie not only in a case, where the Customs Duty has been paid in pursuance of an assessment order, but also where the duty has been borne by the assessee - importer - It is noted that in the present case, the appellant had paid an excess amount of duty in the form of the CVD component paid by it under protest, while clearing the subject goods i.e. girders. Section 27 of the Act provides different situations or circumstances, under which the refund claim can be lodged and to be entertained by the proper officer. In this case, the appellant had objected to the assessment made by the authorities, in consonance with the audit objections raised for the earlier period. Further, the appellant had also represented the authorities regarding its claim for the exemption benefit. Thus, the appellant's case should fall in the second alternative provided in clause (ii) in Section 27 ibid, i.e. 'borne by him'.
On perusal of some of the sample copies of Bills of Entry available in the case file, we find that the same were assessed by the proper officer on 19.02.2009, without extending the benefit of notification dated 24.02.2005, as claimed for by the appellant, which has resulted in payment of excess amount CVD by the appellant. It is an admitted fact on record that the authorities below have not adhered to the request of the appellant, in passing the order(s), negating the claim of entitlement for the CVD exemption as contemplated under the notification dated 24.02.2005. Thus, under the circumstances of the present case, it has to be construed that filing of refund claim by the appellant itself, is to be considered as challenge of the assessment of Bills of Entry, which is detrimental to its claim.
Whether, the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries [2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (8) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] can be applied in the case of the appellant, in denying the refund benefit to it? - Held that: - The issue involved in the case of Priya Blue Ltd, is distinguishable from the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the issue raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was with context with the ruling, as to whether, the words 'in pursuance of an order of assessment', necessary imply that a claim for refund can be made, without challenging the assessment, in an appeal. To answer such specific question framed therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court were pleased to hold that without the order of assessment having been modified in appeal or reviewed, a claim for refund cannot be maintained. In this case, since the appellant had borne the incidence of CVD, for which it had filed the refund application, we are of the considered view that that such application is maintainable under Section 27 of the Act - Similarly, the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. is not applicable to the facts of this case inasmuch as, in the said decided case an adjudication order was passed, which was appealable under the Central Excise statute, but the party aggrieved did not choose to exercise the statutory right of filing an appeal against such order.
The rejection of claim of the appellant on the ground mentioned by the lower authorities is not sustainable - original authority should examine the issue, regarding entitlement of the appellant to the claimed exemption with reference to the defence submission and pass reasoned order on merit - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (12) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT
Misdeclaraion of imported goods - According to the Revenue, the goods were to be graded only as Grade “A” and “AA” whereas the assessee had graded the goods under the grades A, B and C - Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that: - Insofar as grading is concerned, apart from the letter dated 22.12.2000 of the Board of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Taiwan confirming that grades B, C and D also exist, what was available on record is an intra-departmental communication dated 12.04.1999 - The above materials, according to the learned Tribunal, were sufficient to reverse the finding of the primary and the First Appellate Authority on the point of grading.
Valuation - evidence of contemporaneous value of the imported yarns i.e. Partially Oriented Yarn of Polyester (POY), Polyster Textured Yarn (PTY) and Polyester Filament (PFY) - Held that: - The finding of the learned Tribunal is that almost half of number of the said bills of entry relating to each item of Yarn i.e. POY and PFY did not pertain to the yarns imported by the assessee and, in case of the rest, there was a variance in the price mentioned in the aforesaid bills of entry and those in the standing order; yet the prices mentioned in the said standing order were adopted to determine the transaction value.
Tribunal thought it proper to take the view that the claim of the Revenue on the basis of contemporaneous records is not established and what was done was a determination/assessment based on the standing order which is prohibited by Rule 8(2) (v) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 - If the basis on which the learned Tribunal had arrived at its conclusion and thought it proper to reverse conclusions of the primary and First Appellate Authority is to be considered in the light what has been stated above we will have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that in the present case the learned Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion which is possible and permissible upon due consideration of the relevant materials.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 106 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Doctrine of merger - Settlement Commission in exercise of its power conferred under Section 127-I (1) of the Customs Act, 1962, sent the case back to the adjudicating authority for adjudication in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act - whether the subject matter of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner is a fit case for settlement before the Commission? - Held that: - Admittedly, all the records are available in Chennai, in the office of the Settlement Commission and the petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari, to quash the order passed by the Settlement Commission, which was passed at Chennai and this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition.
The present writ petition is for writ of certiorari and the correctness of the order passed by the Settlement Commission is to be decided. The impugned order has not been passed on the merits of the petitioner s claim for settlement, but the application has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to provide the required cooperation to the Settlement Commission to settle the case in a true spirit of settlement. The facts recorded by the Settlement Commission in paragraph 7.4 shows the conduct of the petitioner. It appears that the authorized representative, who was engaged by the petitioner, did not extend full cooperation. That apart, there has been change of the authorized representative.
There is every justification on the part of the Settlement Commission for having refused to entertain the application. However, one more reason assigned by the Commission in Paragraph 7.8 of the impugned order is that the petitioner failed to make full and true disclosure in the application for settlement. However, this conclusion is not supported by adequate findings. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the application was rejected for non-cooperation. In such circumstances, it cannot be stated that the revenue would be prejudiced or put to difficulty for appearing before the Settlement Commission at Chennai, especially when the respondents admit that the Chennai Bench of the Settlement Commission exercises jurisdiction over the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration with a specific direction to the petitioner to extend the full cooperation for the disposal of the matter by the Settlement Commission without seeking for adjournment on vexatious or untenable grounds - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (12) TMI 105 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Classification of imported goods - Concentrated Mineral Drops (CMD) - food preparation or not - whether the goods imported by the appellant viz. Concentrated Minerals Drops (CMD), Elete Electrolyte (Elete) and Nanosil would merit classification as declared by the appellant under CTH 30045020 or under CTH 21069099 as maintained by the department? - Held that: - We are unable to find any facts or evidence adduced by department to establish that CMD is a food preparation per se. By its very nature the use of the word preparations" in heading 21.06 will surely result in foods to be subjected to some type of preparation or in other words, food that has been worked on so as to result in substance like those exemplified in note 5 & 6 of Chapter 21 - We are not able to appreciate that CMD drops would be of genre sought to be explained in the aforesaid chapter notes 5 & 6.
Whether CMD drops can be brought into the umbrella of the residual heading 21069099, when all the other prior sub headings are evidently relating to specific preparations made out of food, like sterilized or pasteurized millstone, and the like? - Held that: - On a comparison of the labels of the appellants CMD drops and that of Kevas Concentrance Mineral Drops, it is noted that both claim to be products from Great Lake of Utah and more or less make the same claims about the ingredients and minerals therein. Both the labels indicate an advisory that the product is not a drug / medicine and not intended to treat, prevent or cure any diseases. In our opinion, therefore Keva's Minerals Drops can be considered as a product identical to that imported by the appellant herein - Tribunal in the case of CC New Delhi Vs Keva Industries [2012 (4) TMI 67 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] has held that the goods being natural sea water had not undergone any processes to be called as 'food preparations or any other preparation'; that there was no test report brought about by Revenue to discharge the burden of proof to claim that goods in question subject to Tariff Entry 2106 and also to satisfy that it was a preparation with or without certain composition and had undergone the process - In the case at hand also there has been no evidence adduced, say by way of an expert opinion or test report from a competent authority / organization to support the claim of the department, that the products are food preparations - the impugned Concentrated Mineral Drops imported by the appellant will not merit classification under 21069099.
Valuation of imported goods - enhancement of value - whether the enhancement of the declared import values by the department is in order? - Held that: - From the narration in the SCN it is found that certain details had been retrieved from the hard disc and other documents recovered from the premises of the appellant. From these documents, it emerged that commercial invoices submitted by the appellant at the time of import indicated lower values per bottle against actual values - the appellant has not disputed the fact of recovery of the hard disc / files / documents which have been analyzed by the Commissioner as aforesaid. They have also not been able to adequately refute, by adducing any evidence to the contrary that the adjudicating authority has erred in arriving at the aforesaid conclusions concerning undervaluation. In the circumstances, we are unable to find any infirmity with that portion of the impugned order rejecting the value declared for the impugned goods and redetermining the same.
However, to arrive at the exact quantum of differential duty liability considering the impugned goods as classifiable under CTH 2501, but on enhanced assessable value based on the re-determined unit values arrived at in para-29 of the impugned order, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for this limited purpose.
Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.
-
2017 (12) TMI 104 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Penalty on CFS - smuggling of prohibited goods - red sanders - outsource of function without the permission of the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin - Held that: - the appellant who is a CFS Agent has to obtain written permission from the Commissioner of Customs to outsource any of the functions entrusted upon him. Undisputedly, the appellant has not obtained any such permission even though they have outsourced the responsibility of transport of the stuffed container from their CFS area to Tuticorin Port - Being the custodian of the goods, the appellant cannot wriggle out of the responsibility by saying that they had outsourced only to licenced Customs Broker and that it was not outsourced to any unknown person.
The standing order is issued by the Commissioner basing on Regulations which are already in existence. Being a service provider, for export of goods, and the offence involved being smuggling of prohibited goods, the penalty is upheld.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 103 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Violation of EPCG Scheme - actual use condition - it was alleged that that two vehicles imported by M/s Hotel Tunga Regency Pvt. Ltd. were used for personal purpose - According to Revenue, even the documentary evidences failed to establish that the vehicles were exclusively used for the tourism purpose of the foreign tourists. There is no dispute by the appellant that the vehicles were used by the Directors (although appellant says at times used). So also appellant could not establish with clean hands that the vehicles were exclusively used for the tourism purpose of the foreign visitors to the hotel - Revenue s further submission is that the EPCG licence impose obligation on the appellant both on user criterion as well as earning of foreign exchange, it was the burden of the appellant to establish that it has fulfilled the condition of the notification, policy as well as the EPCG licence.
Held that: - Due to paucity of time the order could not be recorded - Order is reserved and expect to be pronounced by 10/12/2017.
-
2017 (12) TMI 102 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Confiscation of goods - scope of the term 'importer' - mutilation of goods - Held that: - these appeals can be disposed off on pure question of law as to who is importer. Undisputedly, appellant is a unit situated in SEZ area has cleared the goods from SEZ to DTA though he had filed Bills of Entry on behalf of the DTA unit, discharged duty liability on behalf of DTA unit as is mandated in. It is conceptually clear that clearance made from a SEZ to DTA are considered as imports for the DTA unit and the provisions of the Customs Act 1962 would apply in full force to such imports. In the case in hand, undoubtedly the goods got cleared from the SEZ unit of Anita exports and was examined in the DTA wherein some discrepancy were found out, if that be so, the importer of the said goods from DTA is required to discharge the duty, if any, is the law as it is not the case of the Revenue that the importers were non-existent.
The appellant Anita Exports cannot be considered as an importer, in the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, no duty liability arises and hence goods even if they are liable for confiscation no duty liability arises on the appellant herein.
The case in hand, since the goods area mutilated goods and the appellant being held as not an importer, the appeals to the extent they contest the impugned order before this Tribunal are allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 39 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Classification of coal imported by the appellant/assessee - classified as steam coal falling under CTH 2701 1290 or as bituminous coal falling under CTH 2701 1200? - Held that: - taking note of the fact that the decision rendered by the Bangalore Bench in the case of M/s. Maruti Ispat and Energy Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (10) TMI 944 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] was appealed before the Hon'ble Apex Court, vide Civil Appeal Nos.28937/2014 and 9725/2014, the Larger Bench directed that the matter being subjudice before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the assessees were granted opportunity to come again before the Tribunal after the verdict from the Hon'ble Apex Court - the present appeal will also require to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for denovo consideration, basing upon the outcome of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maruti Ispat and Energy Pvt. Ltd., as laid down by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (12) TMI 38 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Condonation of delay of 555 days in filing appeal before Tribunal - parties to proceedings - Section 129 A of the Customs Act 1962 - Held that: - right to appeal before the Tribunal is for an aggrieved persons against an order passed by the Authority - In the case in hand the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.HYD-CUS-000-APP-162 & 163-15-16 dated 29.02.2016 is indicating that appellant before 1st Appellate Authority is Smt Elete Susheela and not the applicant in this application.
Application filed by applicant to condone the delay in filing the appeal, is devoid of merits, as appeal of Shri E. Ram Reddy itself is not maintainable before the Tribunal - application for COD dismissed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 37 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Penalty - smuggling - The importer had declared 13 types of ‘Wanli’ brand radial car tyres conforming to BIS standards and each bearing MRP, whereas, intelligence suggested that cargo contained branded tyres, without marking of MRP / BIS certification as required under law, for motor vehicles without declaring them with their correct value with the intent to evade customs duty - Held that: - Shri Inderjeet Singh was found actively involved in arranging an official address for Shivani Industries. He was also found to be the defacto importer arranging for CHA clearance, handling correspondence with shipping line, arranging forged indemnity bond, etc. The KYC documents were submitted to CHA by Inderjeet Singh. The above evidences clearly substantiate the role played by Shri Inderjeet Singh in the smuggling of goods - penalty on Shri Inderjeet upheld.
Penalty on H.S. Chadda - Held that: - The investigation by the Department has established that Shri H S Chadha was the mastermind behind the smuggling of goods. He was administratively and financially controlling and supervising the whole scheme of things right from obtaining the IEC in the name of Shivani Industries through Inderjeet Singh. He was found to be closely monitoring all developments in the act of smuggling. He also mislead the department by providing false credentials of the supplier firm in Dubai From the fact that the details of all smuggled goods were found in Shri Chadha’s computer seized by the officials and also the fact that photos of the smuggled goods were taken with his mobile phone clearly proves that he was actively involved in the outright smuggling of goods for which Shivani Industries was the front - penalty upheld.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 36 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Penalty u/s 114AA of CA, 1962 - The case of the Revenue is that the goods were declared with highly inflated value in order to claim ineligible draw back and the appellant’s role, attracted penal provisions - Held that: - The only reason for imposing penalty under Section 114 AA of the Act as could be seen from the original order is that the appellant was in regular contact with Shri Jamuna Prasad and in fact provided him G. Card details. This by itself will not establish the role of abetting in the shipment of consignment in question. The shipping bills were not filed by the appellant and hence, there is no evidence to show that he is part of shipment, which was apparently initiated and processed by Shri Jamuna Prasad.
There is no justification to impose penalty in absence of substantive evidence of abetting in shipment of improper consignment - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 35 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Non-fixation of MRP - goods covered by live bill of entry - Held that: - Admittedly the consignment is yet to be examined and assessed and there is a request by the importer for a first check, before assessment. The fact that the goods which are subjected on MRP basis assessment can be affixed with the MRP labels in the custody of the customs is prevailing practice and the same are done at the request of the importers in many cases. As such, the duty demands and finding of violation on such consignment is premature and cannot be sustained.
Goods found and seized in the godown premises - claim of the appellant is that no correlation has been made with specific import consignment of the appellant and also their claim regarding local purchase has not been verified - Held that: - the duty demand is made based on the inference of higher MRP evidenced in certain sales in Kerala. Admittedly, the good which were found in the godown were without MRP and possibility of that goods likely to have been sold higher MRP cannot be the reasons for sustaining the demand for differential duty. In any case there is force in the claim of the appellant that even if the Revenue contends that these consignments were imported by the appellants apparently they will be part of the other total demand of ₹ 91,86,981/- which covers the period 2014-15 - demand withheld.
Valuation - charge on appellant is that appellant having sold the goods on much higher MRP after changing the MRP label - Held that: - Admittedly, for the goods sold through retailers in Kerala, the MRP was more than double in certain cases. This apparently is clear violation calling for demand of differential duty as well as penal action. However, the quantification of such differential duty has been made in a summary manner based on certain illustrative evidences - the invoices submitted by the appellants required detailed verification so that the differential duty in respect of goods which were sold with much higher MRP can be arrived at on such verification - For this limited purpose, we remand the matter to the original authority for re-quantification of duty.
Appeal partly allowed - part matter on remand.
-
2017 (12) TMI 34 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
N/N. 21/2002-CUS dated 01/03/2002 - Revenue held a view that the imported car was cleared with mis-declaration of its nature and value. It was alleged that the car was not a new one and, as such, the concession available to the new cars should not have been extended to the same - Held that: - on perusal of order passed by the lower authority, no evidence is coming out to hold this vehicle is a used one. Admittedly vehicle is imported into UK on 15/01/2009. There is no evidence that the prior to that date the vehicle has been used. The same is shipped to India on 27/01/2009 i.e. within two weeks of its importation into UK.
In a similar situation, we note that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Jay Polychem India Ltd. [2016 (6) TMI 433 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that considering the proximity of the dates involved in the shipment of the vehicle, the same cannot be considered as “second hand” at the time of import - in the present case there is no evidence of actual usage of the vehicle except an inference that the same has been registered only on 15/01/2009 when the manufacture in Japan is in August 2008.
Valuation - rejection of value - similar/identical goods - Held that: - In the present case the appellant is said to have sold the car with much higher price in India. This was given as one of the main reason for rejecting the declared value. The import value cannot be inferred or determined based on sale value, if any, in India. Admittedly, similar/identical goods have been imported during the period of dispute and were subjected to assessment by the customs authorities - we direct the Original Authority to re-determine the value, in case the rejection of transaction value is justified, by fresh consideration of the facts.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (12) TMI 33 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Import of restricted item - used computer parts and components - specific licence for the goods imported as per para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that: - Notwithstanding the protestations of the ld. Advocate that the goods have come without intimation and that Bill of Entry has not been filed by them, the fact remains that they have owned the import and also participated in subsequent proceedings before the customs authorities and the adjudicating authority - It is also not disputed that they themselves submitted by their letter that the goods have been imported for test - confiscation upheld - quantum of redemption fine and penalty reduced - appeal allowed in part.
-
2017 (12) TMI 32 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Import of restricted item or not? - Used Monitors and used Computer parts - requirement of import license - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that: - the items are not restricted items - since the declared value has been enhanced it is establishing that there is mis-description of the goods. In such circumstances, the redemption fine and penalty would sustain but that imposed by the authorities below is on the higher side - quantum of redemption fine and penalty reduced - appeal allowed in part.
-
2017 (12) TMI 31 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Import of restricted item - rusted M.S. Pipes - requirement of valid import licence - Held that: - In as much as the nature of the imported goods viz., used rusted pipes, there is no dispute. This being so, the allegations of goods requiring specific import licence, but not produced, is sustainable.
Valuation - enhancement of value - case of appellant is that the import was a bulk purchase under quantity import hence enjoyed discount - Held that: - the appellants have not produced any evidence in support of their claim that the declared price was correct transaction value, before any of the lower authorities - both exporter and consignee are identical, aspect which would definitely raised doubt about correctness of the declared imported value - rejection of declared value upheld.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (11) TMI 2036 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Non-service of SCN - Seizure of goods - goods have been seized but no seizure order has been served upon him - HELD THAT:- It is to be noted that upon furnishing personal bond in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 06.06.2017, the goods have been released. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since seizure order has not been served, no further proceeding can be initiated by the authority.
The writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents concerned that, in case, seizure order has not been served upon the petitioner till date, the same shall be served upon the petitioner within two weeks from today.
-
2017 (11) TMI 2024 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Declining to compound the offence qua the petitioner under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1969 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has the remedy of filing an appeal before the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Tribunal and a further remedy of appeal against the order that may be passed by the Tribunal to the Appellate Tribunal. No reasons have been put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner for by passing these efficacious remedies.
On this ground alone, the Writ Petition is dismissed without adjudicating the same on the merits of the case and with liberty to the petitioner to avail the afore-mentioned remedies at her option.
-
2017 (11) TMI 2011 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Clandestine diversion of AGU for industrial use or not - grant of personal hearing - examination/cross-examination of relevant witnesses, allowed or not - permission to petitioner to adduce further evidence - HELD THAT:- Material on record suggests that the adjudicating authority referred to and relied upon the statements of various witnesses to prove the allegations against the noticees. While filing reply to the show cause notices, the petitioners applied for cross-examination of such witnesses citing reasons. The adjudicating authority did not dispose of such a request but proceeded further with the hearing of the show cause notices. In the final order of adjudication, he dealt with such a request rejecting it primarily on the grounds that the cross-examination of investigating officers of the department is not necessary. The petitioners having made confessional statements crossexamination of other witnesses would not be necessary.
Even counsel for the department could not build a case that the adjudicating authority had placed no reliance on the statements of the witnesses whose cross-examination the petitioners wanted but the adjudicating denied. That being the position, it was necessary that the petitioners be allowed cross-examination of such witnesses at least on sample basis. It is not possible for us to segregate the nature of evidence on record and come to the conclusion that even in absence of the statements of these witnesses, the findings of the adjudicating authority can be salvaged. The adjudicating authority not having undertaken any such exercise it would neither be possible nor appropriate on our part to do so.
The impugned orders are vitiated on the ground of cross-examination of witnesses not being allowed though applied for and that adjudicating authority relying upon the statements of such witnesses in the final order of adjudication - Only on the ground of not permitting cross-examination of the members of panel, in the opinion of the Court, did not vitiate the order of confiscation against the petitioner.
Proceedings are remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.
............
|
