9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been discussed and disposed of properly on the basis of evidence available. Besides, the appellants have submitted that the Collector did not take into account the expert opinion of the Superintendent who had examined the seized articles and given the opinion that except for dobbies stands others were crude castings. This opinion was forwarded to the appellants on 10-11-1982 along with a covering letter. 9. The appellants argued that the mode adopted for billing cannot be conclusive of the nature of the goods and cited a judgment (4 34 SCC 339-Madras High Court) in support of their argument. However, their main grievance is that the evidence filed by them in the shape of 30 affidavits of purchasers from Tamil Nadu and the outcome of the cross-examination of some other purchasers during the adjudication proceedings was not given due consideration and weight by the Collector. They also referred specifically the cross-examination of Govindan and Ambalagan who are stated to have said during cross-examination that what they had purchased were rough castings and these were further machined by them. A perusal of the Collector's orders show that the evidence put forward by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not sustainable in law. He further pointed out that the Tribunal in the remand order also pointed out that the expert opinion of the Superintendent who had examined the seized articles and given the evidence that except for Dobbies other goods are crude castings. It was pointed out before us, that this opinion of the Superintendent was not at all looked into by the adjudicating authority on the ground that these were not relied upon in the show cause notice. Shri Rajesh Chander Kumar pointed out that the Tribunal had given the liberty to the appellants to produce the new evidences and those documents which was the documents sent by the Superintendent can be taken as an additional evidence and the Collector having relied on the same in the original proceedings which was referred to in the Tribunal order due weight should have been given to this opinion. He, further, pointed out that brushing aside this opinion on the ground that it was not relied on in the show cause notice is against the order of the remand passed by the Tribunal. He further pointed out that in the order passed by the Tribunal, it was clearly mentioned that the affidavits which were 30 in numbers filed by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat even though the opinion furnished by the Superintendent was not taken into consideration. It was pointed out that as per the chapter notes even if there is some evidence, they are to be treated as finished goods for assessment purposes. He therefore pointed out that this point can looked into by the Tribunal. He further pointed out that the Tribunal order is only a general order and no specific direction is given by the Tribunal while remanding the case. 4. We have considered the submissions. As far as the mention of cross- examination of the witnesses are concerned it has been contended before us that the cross-examination of the witnesses is in the nature of new evidences on behalf of the appellants. We are unable to agree with this argument of the learned Advocate. The Tribunal only has stated that the appellant may be given an opportunity to produce the evidence before a fresh order is passed. Cross examining the present witnesses who have already been examined by the officers and to get this examination is not a fresh evidence as contained in the order passed by the Tribunal. It is also seen that in the original appeal before the Tribunal the appellant has not made a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y have filed the earlier appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also took note of these pleas of the appellant. It was therefore pointed out that the appellant was at liberty to produce fresh evidence. In this case, since the evidence is available in the record of the adjudicating officer he was duty bound to look into these evidences before giving any finding in this regard. On the contrary, in the impugned order, he stated that these were not the documents relied upon by the department while issuing the show cause notice and these documents were not looked into. This non-examination is a clear violation of the order of the Tribunal by way of remand wherein it was specifically stated that the appellants should be given an opportunity to produce any such evidence. This not only is an evidence produced by the appellant but is an evidence available with the department itself. Therefore non-consideration of this evidence is violating the principles of natural justice. In any case, the directions of the Tribunal in this regard has not been carried out. 8. It was also pointed out by the learned Advocate that the Tribunal had directed the adjudicating authority to look into the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
