TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even discussed the said request in the impugned order. The impugned order has not gone into all aspects of the dispute concerned and also suffers from denial of natural justice to the appellant herein. In the event, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication - appeal allowed by way of remand. - C/563/2007 & C/567/2007 - A/30534-30535/2017 - Dated:- 12-4-2017 - Shri. Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri M.V.S. Prasad, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Nagaraj Naik, DC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per : Madhu Mohan Damodhar Both these appeals since emanate from the same impugned order, hence they are taken up for common dispo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,97,317/- was imposed on M/s.Helpline (second named appellant) under Section 114 ibid, and in addition penalty of ₹ 4 crores was also imposed on them under Section 112 (a) ibid. Penalty of ₹ 40 lakhs under Section 114 (iii) ibid and a further penalty of ₹ 40 lakhs under Section 112 (a) ibid were imposed on first named appellant Mirza Ghouse Ahmed. Aggrieved, both these appellants are before this forum. 3. On 23.02.2017, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant, Ld. Advocate Shri M.V.S. Prasad put forth following main submissions : (i) The entire case of the department is based on statements recorded from both the partners and Help Line which are not credible being not voluntary and not suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .-Del.) relied upon]. Section 113 (d) cannot be invoked in case of alleged overvaluation of exports for claiming higher DEPB benefit if the goods exported are not prohibited [Prayag Exporters Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC Mumbai 2000 (121) ELT 319 (Tribunal) relied upon]. (vii) The value claimed on the shipping bills cannot be rejected without challenging the assessment ( Priya Blue 2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC) relied upon). (viii) The confiscation of already exported consignments under Section 113 (i) is not sustainable since the said section came into existence with effect from 14.05.2003 while the exports took place between December 2000 and August 2001. The said provision was not in existence during relevant period. Similarly Section 114 (ii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cating the noticees. 6.2 Cross examination of the other persons implicated in that case was sought by both these appellants. 6.3 In his reply to SCN, the second named appellant, Mirza Ghouse Ahmed contended that he had no role to play in any of the alleged transactions except signing an account in the name of Help Line and signing the cheque as joint Authorized Signatory. 6.4 Study of the impugned order indicates that none of the above contentions of the appellants have been taken on record, discussed or otherwise dealt with by the adjudicating authority. 6.5 In a matter with such huge ramifications involving alleged wrong availment of DEPB credit amounting to ₹ 75,97,317/- with the SCN proposing equal penalty under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l justice to the appellant herein. In the event, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication of the matter in respect of the two appellants herein. The adjudicating authority will give reasonable opportunity to these appellants to present their case including submission of additional evidence, if any. Opportunity to cross examine other implicated persons shall also be accorded by the adjudicating authority to the extent permitted by law. The inadequacies in the present impugned order observed by us in Paras 6.1 to 6.8 above, as also the grievances of the appellants summarized in para 3 above shall also be addressed in the de novo proceedings. All issues are kept open. After hearing these appellants, ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
