2006 (2) TMI 332

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - The appellant was working as an Inspector of Customs and In-charge of EOU units. He has been charged for having colluded with the exporters and granting them the benefits against the provisions of law. He has been imposed with penalty of Rs. 30,000/-. The main person with whom he has been held to have colluded with is Shri La....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....justice. He submitted that the initial statement of the appellant was also resiled and hence, whatever admissions were there in the earlier statement is not binding on him and cannot be taken as a ground for imposing penalty on him. Even in the earlier statement, he had not admitted about any role to attract penal provisions. He further submitted that he had requested for grant of consumption cert....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re, the penalty is required to be set aside. 3. The learned SDR defended the order and contended that the appellant had collided with Vikram Jain in transferring the duty free goods to another unit. The appellant had asked the Lalit Jain to handover these goods which were imported duty free to Vikram Jain to avail the benefit. The appellants had made a belated retraction in 2000 from his o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant, it would have proved the case in his favour. Non-production of documents and non-production of Lalit Jain for cross-examination is fatal to this case. In view of clear violation of principle of natural justice, the impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded for de novo consideration. We give clear directions to the Revenue to summon Lalit Jain for cross-examination by the appe....