Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Matchwell Chemical Works, M/s. Sherry International And Shri Johny Singh, Authorised Signatory Versus CC New Delhi (Import & General)

2016 (3) TMI 797 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Undervaluation of goods - Appellants eschewed cross examination of persons - Demand of Customs duty and imposition of penalty - Held that:- it is not in doubt that as statements of various persons whose cross examination was sought by the appellants were relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority against the appellants not permitting their cross examination obviously caused prejudice to the appellants. The minimum consequence of denial of cross examination in these circumstances is that the state .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

annot be compared with the value of goods of prime quality. For valuation of non prime quality goods supplied on 'as is where is basis' without warranty, their physical examination is necessary to ascertain their value and there is nothing on record to establish that the impugned goods cleared were of prime quality. Therefore, there is no undervaluation of goods and the impugned order do not sustain. - Decided in favour of appellant - Appeal No. C/402, 403, 404/2010-CU(DB) - Final Order No. 5087 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hed an investigation and searched the premises of the appellant and recorded the statement of various persons. Mr. Johny Singh was the authorized representative of appellants No. 1 & 2. The show cause notice was issued on conclusion of investigation alleging under valuation of imported video cassettes. The case was adjudicated vide order in original dated 12/2005 dated 01.03.2005. On appeal filed by the appellant CESTAT found that the order in original dated 30.01.2005 was issued in violatio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

various persons like M/s. Poonam Cargo Services, CHA, Shri Sanjay Dua, Manager of M/s. Anil Verma, CHA, Shri Rakesh Saini, Executive Logistics, M/s. Sony India (P) Ltd., Nobutomo Fujimori, General Manager, Recording Group Media of Sony India, Dalip, etc. Their cross examination was sought but was denied by the adjudicating authority who falsely recorded that during personal hearing, cross examination was eschewed. The appellants claimed that they never gave up the right to cross examination and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the preventive unit which found nothing amiss. (iv) The prices were negotiated prices for recycled tapes as the evident from several emails exchanged between the supplier and the appellants and the goods were purchased on as is where is basis without any warranty. The supplier M/s. Sony Gulf FZE supplied goods on payment which was directly made to them by the appellants and therefore, the statements of the officials of Sony India that Sony does not supply recycled tapes is not correct. (v) As n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation. 3. We have considered the contentions of both sides. 4. We find that CESTAT vide the interim order no. 1041-1043/2014 dated 31.12.2014 passed the following order: 1. In reply to the show cause notice dated 19.04.2002 alleging undervaluation of the imported professional video cassettes, the appellant categorically and in detail vide para 5 and reiterated in interim prayer B, of its reply to the show cause notice demanded for cross-examination of various individuals mentioned in para 5 of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

amine any such person as it would prolong the proceedings and requested that the matter be decided on merits and on the basis of available records. The appellant contests this finding recorded by the adjudicating authority and states that cross-examination was never given up during adjudication proceeding. 3. In the circumstances, the respondent shall file an affidavit furnishing the record of the adjudication hearin, particularly the one dated 26.03.2010, to establish whether the appellant had .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nts eschewed cross examination of the persons whose statement were relied upon during adjudication. The issue regarding cross examination have been discussed in detail in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Vs. CCE 2015 (8) SCC 519 in which Hon ble Supreme Court essentially held that cross examination of a person is required to be granted if the absence of cross examination of that person will cause prejudice to the appellant. It is not in doubt that as statements of various persons whose cross exami .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version