TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1001X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions. Matter remanded back to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication after allowing the applicants to inspect the documents and supplying them the copies of all the documents relied upon by the DRI and considering the applicants’ request for cross-examination of the signatories - appeal allowed by way of remand. - C/280, 281, 283, 284 and 282/2009-Mum - A/196-200/2009-WZB/C-II/(CSTB) - Dated:- 13-8-2009 - Shri A.K. Srivastava and Ashok Jindal, JJ. Shri K.R. Bulchandani, Ms. Tulsi A. Zaveri Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri H.B. Negi, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER These stay petitions are arising out of order-in-original No. 189/2008/CAC/CC/KS dated 30-12-2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry No. 13053 and 13056 both dated 29-8-97 including the excess/undeclared goods and toolings and fixtures imported on free of charge basis should not be held liable to confiscation under Section 111(d), (l) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962; and (d) penalties on M/s. Videocon VCR Ltd., Shri V.N. Dhoot, Shri V.R. Sambhus and Shri P.S. Parab should not be imposed, under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962. 3. In their defence, the applicants raised preliminary objection that despite the direction to DRI officials by the learned Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) to grant inspection and provide copies of documents to the applicants in accordance with their letters dated 11-4-2001, 18-4-2001, 5-9-2001, 28-1-2002, 30-8-2002, 22-1-2003 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though the request to that effect is recorded in the impugned order in Para 24 thereof (page 272 of the Order). 4. The Commissioner adjudicated the matter and passed the order confirming the demand raised in the show cause notice, imposing penalties on the applicants and confiscating the goods and allowing them to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine, although the goods were not available for confiscation. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants have filed the present appeals along with the stay petitions. 5. On hearing both sides and perusing the records, we find substance in the grievance of the applicants inasmuch as the impugned order has been passed in clear breach of the principles of natural justice. Neither the inspection of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd he should have given finding in this regard. The Commissioner has failed to carry out his quasi-judicial duties by not considering the request of cross-examination made by the applicants for which they had given reasons and justifications. All allegations set out in the show cause notice have been reproduced verbatim in the impugned order by the Commissioner and he has failed to apply his mind independently and pass reasoned order after discussing the various submissions made by the applicants. Moreover, the impugned order has been passed after 5 months after the completion of the proceedings. 7. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner, therefore, merits to be set aside. We do so and remand the matter back to the Commissioner fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
