9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. During the course of argument learned Counsel for the Appellant Ms. C. Pooja Reddy submitted that the said penalty was imposed by the Adjudicating authority without following the principle of natural justice against which they preferred the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) that yielded no fruitful result. She has drawn attention of this Bench to the various statements of the witnesses including that of the partner Mr. Mohan S. Poojari who stated that 'somebody was misusing their CHA licence' but that statement was not accepted by the Adjudicating Authority or Commissioner (Appeals). On the other hand, they were denied of the opportunity of cross examination of some of the officials and witnesses, basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P copies of the Shipping Bills were already furnished to the notices. E. The Appellant made a specific request for an opportunity of cross-examination of certain officers and witnesses who were concerned with the said case and whose evidence would be relevant i.e. who had granted Let Export Order on the basis of various documents. However, in spite of these specific and repeated requests, no opportunity of cross-examination has been granted. No reasons as to why cross-examination cannot be granted are also communicated or mentioned in the impugned Order." He had clearly mentioned about none supply of copies of relevant documents and not granting opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses by the Appellants. Though some reasons like ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Anr. . This was followed by the Lahore High Court in Kirpa Singh v. Ajaipal Singh and Ors. AIR (1930) Lahore 1 and the Bombay High Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh AIR (1931) Bombay 97. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh's case (supra). The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virender Nath and Anr. held that if a party abstains from entering the witness box, it would give rise to an inference adverse against him. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Bhishan Chand and Ors. , drew a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
