Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 22 - CESTAT NEW DELHIMis-declaration of Mud additive chemicals for oil well - Confiscation - Valuation - Payment of redemption fine - Penalty - denial of the cross examination by the Commissioner - Relevancy of statements u/s 138B - HELD THAT:- It is a well-settled legal position that unless the statements have been put through the process prescribed u/s 138B, they are not relevant at all to prove the case. By not following the procedure prescribed in section 138B, the Commissioner has rendered all the six statements (RUD- 4 to RUD-9) irrelevant to prove the case. The only other important document is the test report of the CRCL. Shri Singhal’s assertion was that what was attempted to be exported was Mud Additive Chemical and according to the CRCL, it was urea. Therefore, if Shri Singhal wanted to cross examine the chemical examiner who had tested the sample and said that it was urea, it is but just and proper. However, the Commissioner denied cross examination. Once all the statements and the test report of CRCL are ignored, nothing survives in this case and the impugned order cannot be sustained. To sum up: (a) By not following the procedure prescribed under section 138B, the Commissioner rendered all the six statements relied upon in the SCN irrelevant to the case; (b) By denying cross examination the Commissioner has also rendered the test report of CRCL irrelevant to prove the case of the department. (c) De hors the statements and the test report of the CRCL, nothing survives in the impugned order. Thus, all three appeals are allowed and the impugned order is set aside insofar as it pertains to Shri Singhal, Shri Bharadwaj and Shri Jindal.
|