TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the adjudicating authority to provide the cross examination of the witnesses which is mandatory u/s 138(1)(b). The Adjudicating authority, irrespective of any grave offence, was suppose to give cross examination of the witnesses. By not complying the provision of Section 138(b) (1)(b) he has violated the principle of natural justice - matter needs to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fence of fraudulent import. 2. Shri. Anil Balani, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that they had requested adjudicating authority for cross examination of the witnesses whose statements were used for implicating present appellant. He submits that confessional statements were retracted by the appellant. However no cross examination was allowed. He submits that in terms of Section 138B (2) t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts were indulged in the fraudulent import therefore there was no necessity to give cross examination of other witnesses. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Naresh J. Sukhawani Vs. Union of India[1996(83) ELT 258(S.C.)] (b) Gulam Hussain Shaikh Chougule Vs. S. Reynolds, Supd. Of Cus, Marmgoa[2001(134) ELT 3(S.C.)] (c) International Electron devices Ltd. Vs. Commr, of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve offence, was suppose to give cross examination of the witnesses. By not complying the provision of Section 138(b) (1)(b) he has violated the principle of natural justice. I am therefore of the considered view that matter needs to be remanded to original adjudicating authority, accordingly both matter are remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh denovo adjudication complying the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
