9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., Varsha, 13, Adarsh Society, Ram Chandra Lane Ext., Malad (West), Mumbai 400 064 Appellant No. 2 3. C/10478/2013 C/10482/2013 C/10694/2013 C/10697/2013 C/10700/2013 C/10706/2013 C/10709/2013 C/10712/2013 C/10715/2013 C/10718/2013 C/10721/2013 C/10724/2013 Shri Devkumar Kapta, SDH-20, 4-B, Adipur, Gandhidham Appellant No. 3 4. C/10479/2013 C/10481/2013 C/10484/2013 C/10486/2013 C/10693/2013 C/10696/2013 C/10699/2013 C/10702/2013 Shri Shantilal Jain, Varsha, 13, Adarsh Society, Ram Chandra Lane Ext., Malad (West), Mumbai 400 064 Appellant No. 4 C/10705/2013 C/10708/2013 C/10711/2013 C/10714/2013 C/10717/2013 C/10720/2013 C/10723/2013 5. C/10585/2013 M/s Pravin Bhatt & Sons Appellant No. 5 6 C/10586/2013 Shri Jitendra P. Bhatt Appellant No. 6 2. Brief facts of the case are as under :- These cases were booked by DRI, on the ground that the imports were made by Shri A.K. More, Shri Rajo Mohta and Shri S.S. Sharma, against certain forged/tampered licences in collusion with the appellants mentioned above. After conducting detailed investigations, show cause notices, inter alia, issued to the several persons including the present appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allow the cross-examination of the officers. 13. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authorities to supply the documents i.e. tampered advance licences to the appellants and to allow them cross-examine the officers, wherever possible, as we are aware of the practical difficulties of the officers not being available. As we have already remanded the matter on this ground, we would also like the Commissioner to take into consideration the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saiyed Ali - 2011 (265) E.L.T. 17 (S.C.) (referred supra) as also the Board circular dated 15-4-2011 and/or any subsequent development on the above point of jurisdictions." 2.1 In the remand proceedings, CC, Kandla fixed a personal hearing for 24-5-2012 and appellants vide their letter dated 22-5-2012 asked for copies of tampered advance licences as per the directions given by CESTAT. Cross-examination of the Customs officers was also requested. It was submitted by the appellants that in the absence of above compliance, personal hearing fixed by CC, Kandla on 24-5-2012 will not serve any purpose. Another ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI - 2006 (205) E.L.T. 130 (Guj.). Shri P.M. Dave further argued that another direction of CESTAT under remand order dated 16-6-2011 to grant cross-examination of the Customs officers has also not been complied with and that no efforts have been made to summon the concerned Customs officers who allowed assessment of the goods under the tampered licences. 4. Dr. J. Nagori (AR), on the other hand, argued that the tampered advance licences were never recovered during the investigation and were not the relied upon documents in the show cause notices issued to the appellants. He thus argued that the adjudicating authority did his best to trace out the tampered advance licences but the same were not found to be available with the Department and never recovered. Shri Nagori (AR), accordingly, endorsed the view of the adjudicating authority that supply of copies of forged licences and cross-examination of officers is not necessary to decide this issue as these were not relied upon in the show cause notices and that in these proceedings one should not limit only to the forged/tampered licences and cross-examination of the Customs officers. 5. Heard both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CESTAT regarding cross-examination of Customs officers which has no relation at all to the non-supply of tampered/forged advance licences. No letters for cross-examination of the Customs/assessing officers have been shown to have been issued by the adjudicating authority. The attitude depicted by the adjudicating authority clearly shows that he has clearly by-passed the remand directions given by this Bench. 7. Shri P.M. Dave (Advocate) has relied upon, inter alia, on the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Milcent Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI - 2006 (205) E.L.T. 130 (Guj.). In this case, classification of the product Domestic Flour Mills (commonly known as 'Gharghanti') was required to be decided. The adjudicating authority decided the classification as per Circular No. 11/90-CX-4, dated 31-5-1990. Before the appeals were taken up for hearing before CESTAT, in that case, C.B.E. & C. issued one more Circular No. 82/82/94-CX, dated 5-12-1994. The case was remanded by CESTAT to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the case, inter alia, on the basis of Circular dated 5-12-1994. However, the concerned authority decided the classification of the product in the light of the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him in exercise of its appellate powers in respect of an order of assessment made by him. Such refusal is in effect a denial of justice, and is furthermore destructive of one of the basic principles in the administration of justice based as it is in this country on a hierarchy of courts. If a subordinate tribunal refuses to carry out directions given to it by a superior Tribunal in the exercise of its appellate powers the result will be chaos in the administration of justice and we have indeed found it very difficult to appreciate the process of reasoning by which the learned Judicial Commissioner while roundly condemning the respondent for refusing to carry out the directions of the superior Tribunal, yet held that no manifest injustice resulted from such refusal. It must be remembered that the order of the Tribunal dated April 22, 1954, was not under challenge before the Judicial Commissioner. That order had become final and binding on the parties, and the respondent could not question it in any way. As a matter of fact the Commissioner of Income-tax had made an application for a reference, which application was subsequently withdrawn. The Judicial Commissioner was not sitting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
