AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (3) TMI 382
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ead of Commissioner [2003 (157) E.L.T. 62 (T)] in the case of Saraf Fabrics Ltd. v. CC. (B) Commissioner (Preventive) Mumbai, instead of CC (Ahmedabad), not accepting the exports made from Porbander (Gujarat) as valid. DEECs also completed by ACC Porbander (587, 619, 646) 2000 (116) E.L.T. 220 (T) (Para 17) in the case of Montana Valves & Compressor (P) Ltd. (C) Commissioner (P) Mumbai, instead of CC, Nheva Seva/Mumbai Port from where the imported goods had been cleared, adjudicating the case. 1997 (73) ECR 348 (T) in the case of Informatika Software (P) Ltd. v. CC, (P) Calcutta. (D) Despite corrigendum to SCN (389) making it adjudicable only by CC, Nhava Sheva) & CC, (Imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CBI's favourable and detailed report (as also referred in the Tribunal's Remand Order dated 19-10-1995) (106-108) neither supplied (410) nor relied upon (75). (I) Cross-examination of Porbunder Customs & Rajkot Central Excise officers not allowed despite repeated requests and justification (419, 410, 414, 416). 2001 (136) E.L.T. 9 (Bom.) in the case of Gyan Chand Sant Lal Jain v. UOI. (J) Firm having poor liquidity, not doing business and suffering losses for many years. (K) Regarding penalty on Shri Hitesh Shah (101), the law laid down is that no penalty is leviable on an employee. 2005 (185) E.L.T. 387 (T) in the case of O.P. Agarwal v. Commissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Centre v. D.G. Health Services - 1997 (95) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) 3. After considering submissions from both sides and perusal of case records, we are of the view that the adjudicating Commissioner has painstakingly considered various points raised by the appellants and has arrived at his findings after weighing the available evidence which prima facie cannot be considered unreasonable. We also find that the adjudicating Commissioner has not prima facie acted beyond his Jurisdiction. Further, we are of the prima facie view that the department not proceeding against errant Customs officials cannot absolve the appellants from the consequences of their action. Similarly, non-supply of the CBI report, if any, cannot be fatal as the same ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctorate have clearly shown that the exports effected by the appellants are genuine and true. M/s. Fairlong Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture and sale of marine engineering goods and in fact they were one of the largest suppliers of the goods to the Indian Navy. The Excise and Sales Tax officials have visited their factory and also perused the records maintained by them. No objections were raised at any time about the manufacturing activities of the disputed goods and their export. M/s. Metropolitan Industries also tendered M/s. Fairlong Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. to supply goods for export. The exports made by them were cross checked by the Customs, Port, Octroi and Central Excise authorities. They had followed a regul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Lakshman Exports Ltd. v. Collector of C. Ex. has held that in reply to the Show Cause Notice, the assessee has specifically asked for cross examination of the representatives of the two concerns to establish that the goods in question has been accounted for and the matter was remanded with a specific direction after setting aside the order. Therefore, particularly when the documentary evidence regarding exports is authentic as admitted in the Show Cause Notice and the conclusions are drawn on the testimony of the witnesses, not giving opportunity to cross examine the witness, has been prima facie vitiated the impugned order. 9. All these factors referred above constitute a strong prima facie case in favour of the appellants and in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iii) The Show Cause Notice for the extended period has been issued by the Asstt. Commissioner instead of Commissioner, as such, the show cause notice is not valid, 2003 (157) E.L.T. 62 (Tri. - Mumbai) in the case of Saraf Fabrics Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Mumbai. (iv) The Commissioner (Prev) Mumbai has adjudicated the case instead of Commissioner Customs, Nhava Sheva Port, from where the imported goods have been cleared. (v) Despite the corrigendum dated 18-10-1994 to show cause notice authorizing Collector of Customs, Nhava Sheva to adjudicate. Collector of Customs (Prev.), Mumbai has adjudicated the case which totally falls beyond" his jurisdiction and as such the i....