TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (5) TMI 38
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: "Whether the order dated 25th January, 2011 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of the appellants meets and deals with the contentions raised by the parties as required and mandated by law?" 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid question and proceed to dictate our decision. 3. The seven appellants are traders based in Chandni Chowk, Delhi and are trading in silk and unstitched cloth etc. 4. By an Order-in-Original dated 27th September, 2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, penalty of Rs.5 lacs each was imposed on them under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 (Act, for short). He held that they were trading and dealing with Chinese silk cloth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ese appellants to charge. Thus all their appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed." 6. The aforesaid paragraph refers to paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of the appellate order. The said paragraphs for the sake of convenience are also reproduced below:- "ADJUDICATION OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS AGAINST TRADER APPELLANTS 5.1 So far as the following appeals of the Traders are concerned, ld. Adjudicating Authority dealt their cases in Para 546 to 548 of the order of Adjudication:- APPEALS FILED BY TRADERS AGAINST ORDER OF ADJUDIATION 1 Mahendra Jain C-11/2008 Appearance for Assessee Appearance for Revenue 2 Anudeep Singh C-12/2008 Mr. Shailendra Bhardwaj Mr. Sumit Kumar 3 Gopal Dokania C-13/2008....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Khan and Dil Agha but did not deal with them for purchase of silk fabrics. (6) Mahender Jain in his statements dated 19th Jan. 2001 & 1st Feb., 2001 admitted that he knew Mamoor Khan but denied to had any dealing related to silk fabrics. 5.2 Testimony of Adbul Qahar suggested that the trader appellants were aware of the illegal activities of Ms. Olga K. and her associates. Examination and evaluation of the telephonic contacts exhibited by Table No. 10 & 11 to SCN threw light on such aspect. They were regularly in touch with Mamoor Khan and Dil Agha on their Mobile No. 9811135921 and 9811065897 respectively. Number of calls exchanged were indeed very large and ran into hundred of calls, as evident from Table No. 10 to SCN. The appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aders to charge. Circumstantial evidence were sufficient to impute the traders to charge who had knowledge of the illegal import of silk textiles rendering such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. So also the appellant traders were liable to penal action under Section 112(b) of the Act for their conscious involvement and possession/sale, purchase of the offending goods." 7. A reading of paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 would show that they merely reproduce the contents of the show cause notice and reference is made to testimonies/statements and other contentions recorded therein. 8. Paragraph 27 is the only paragraph which specifically deals with and refers to the allegations and records the findings of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eir identity and destination of the offending goods. The statements of the seven appellants have not been referred and or specifically examined in paragraph 27 or any other portion of the impugned order. 9. There is no other discussion in the impugned order relating to defence or the contention of the seven appellants. In this regard, we may mention that in paragraph 17, the tribunal has recorded that both sides were heard extensively on various occasions and their contention/submissions were recorded in the open court on the dates of hearings and copy of the same were provided to the parties. The contentions raised by the seven appellants as recorded by the tribunal at the time of hearing have been enclosed as annexures to the present a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et Kumar, Anudeep Singh, Gopal Dokania, Nitesh Kumar Kedia, Sanjeev Jain and Arun Dokania. It is pointed out that in the case of Sanjeev Jain no statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Act. 10. We have examined the contentions and issues which were raised by the appellants and have been noticed by the tribunal itself in the record of proceedings. We have also examined the written submissions which were filed by the appellants before the tribunal and have been placed on record. We do not think the tribunal was right in disposing of the appeal by recording the reasons given in paragraph 27, which according to us do not specifically deal and examine the contentions and issues raised. The order is virtually a non-speaking order and d....