TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Customs Act only and if the said ground is adopted as a reason for denial of cross-examination, there would be never ever be any cross-examination of any deponent during the proceedings. This cannot be allowed to be happened. Revenue by not allowing the cross-examination of the witnesses and the experts whose statements and opinions are being relied upon by them, have committed the gross violation of principles of natural justice. On this limited ground and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned order and remand all the appeals to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal Nos. 57205-57206, 57339-57340, 57510 and 58971 of 2013 - Final Order No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalties. 4. During the course of adjudication, the appellant made a prayer for cross-examination of the deponents whose statements were recorded and relied upon. Such request of the appellant was rejected by the Commissioner and communicated to the appellant by the letter dated 19/11/12 written by the Superintendent (Adjudication), communicating the Commissioners decision. The said letter was challenged by the appellant before the Hon ble Delhi High Court, who disposed of the same vide their order dated 7th December, 2012 by accepting the appellant s prayer to withdraw the same with liberty to raise the objections before the original Adjudicating Authority or if need be before the Appellate Authority. 5. The appellant filed an app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on M/s J.S. Designer Ltd., ₹ 10 crores on Shri Vikas Mohan Singhal, Director of the Exporting Firm and of various amounts on the other applicants who are Directors wife, one of the applicant is suppliers of the materials etc. The appellant s grievance is that the Commissioner has relied upon statements of various persons recorded during investigation, without testing the veracity of the same by the tool of cross-examination. We find that the Commissioner has not allowed cross-examination of the deponents, whose statement were relied upon, on the ground that the said statements were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and have not been retracted. We are afraid that we find no merits in the said observation of the Adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be expected to pre-disclose the outcome of the said cross-examination, as is being argued by the learned DR. Further we find in the last order of the Tribunal, there is no directions of the Revenue to seek comments from the Commissioner. The only direction was to the Advocate to place on record the summary of the grounds for cross-examination which stand placed on record by the learned Advocate. 10. At this stage, we find that the Tribunal in the case of Swiber Ofshore Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, Kandla reported in 2014 (301) E.L.T. 119 (Tri. - Ahmd.) in an almost identical case of over valuation, has held that the witnesses whose statements were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and opinion of the experts relied up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
