TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mehta. Shri Alpesh Shah is the proprietor of M/s Samudri International and Bhupendra Ravani is the proprietor of M/s Mayur Enterprises and M/s Madhu Enterprises. It is very surprising that the statements of persons against whom the custom duty demand was confirmed were never recorded, even the said importers were not made confronted with the statements of Shri Bhumish Shah and Shri Kejal Mehta. In such a situation it becomes necessary that the cross examination must be granted. There is gross violation of principle of natural justice in passing the adjudicating order, therefore such order deserves to be set aside and remanded - appeal allowed by way of remand. - APPEAL NO.C/1241/08-MUM, C/1242/08-MUM, C/1253/08-MUM, C/1254/08-MUM, C/12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of section112(a) 3 C/1253/08-MUM Mayur Ravani (A) Penalty ₹ 75,000/- under section 112(a) (B) Penalty ₹ 7,50,000/- under the provisions of section112(a) 4 C/1254/08-MUM M/s. Madhu Enterprises (B) Custom duty ₹ 7,97,780/- under sec 28 ,alongwith interest under section 28 AB of the customs act 1962 Penalty ₹ 7,97,780/- under sec 114A of the Customs Act 1962 5 C/1255/08/-MUM M/s. Mayur Enterprises (A) Redemption fine ₹ 1,69,830/- under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. During the investigation, premises of one Shri Bhumish Shah who is working as an agent for the foreign supplier M/s. IJIMASIA Pte. Ltd., Singapore was searched from where some incriminating documents were recovered which contained information of prices declared to customs as well as the actual prices at which imported goods were purchased from the foreign suppliers. Statements of various persons, namely, Shri Bhumish Shah, broker and indenting agent, Shri Kejal Mehta were recorded. On scrutiny of the seized documents, the confessional statements of the above persons recorded after confronting with the incriminating documents, s show cause notice bearing No.DRI/MZU/D/25/Samudri/2001 dated 13.10.2003 was issued to the appellants proposing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l submits that the entire demand was confirmed on the basis of documents recovered from one Shri Bhumish Shah and the statement of Shri Bhumish Shah and Shri Kejal Mehta. He submits that Shri Kejal Mehta did not represent M/s Samudri International therefore his statement or statement of Shri Bhumish Shah can not be used against M/s. Samudri International for confirmation of demand. It is his submission that the documents seized from Shri Bhumish Shah did not contain name of appellants firm and proprietor. He submits that vide letter dated 12/6/2008, 15/7/2008 and 17/7/2008 request was made to the Commissioner for supply of relied upon documents and granting cross examination, it was not considered. He also submits that appellant Shri. Alpe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntawala appearing on behalf of Shri Bhumish Shah submits that the appellant is merely indenting agent and works purely on commercial consideration of very meager amount of commission and he is not concerned with under valuation of the imported goods. He also submits that during adjudication process the appellant was not granted personal hearing as the appellant did not receive notice dated 16/2/2008 and 23/7/2008. Since nobody appeared on behalf of the other appellants i.e. M/s Mayur enterprises and M/s Madhu enterprises. We perused the records of both the appellants. 3. On the other hand, Shri A. K. Singh, Addl. Commr.(A.R.) reiterating the findings of the impugned order submits that the under valuation of spices is established on the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... becomes necessary that the cross examination must be granted. It is also observed from the records that Commissioner has not considered the written submissions made vide letters dated 8/12/2006 and 26/12/2007 filed by Shri Alpesh Mehta, Proprietor of M/s Samudri International. Similarly, in the case of M/s Mayur enterprises and M/s Madhu enterprises, the Commissioner has not considered the submissions made vide letter dated 4/12/2004,27/12/2007, 2/6/2008, hence order was passed ex-parte. 5.1 In view of our above observations, it is clear that there is gross violation of principle of natural justice in passing the adjudicating order, therefore such order deserves to be set aside and remanded. We therefore, set aside the order and remand t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
