2013 (11) TMI 791

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....35 Kgs. valued at 2,04,700.00, while attempting to illegally export the same to Nepal. His statement was recorded under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein he had confessed that the goods belonged to one Shri Laxmi Prasad of Motihari. Consequently, the impugned goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and show cause notice was issued to the respondents. On adjudication, the impugned goods were confiscated under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty of Rs. 1,25,000.00 was imposed on Shri Laxmi Prasad and Rs. 15,000.00 on Shrawan Sah under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said Order, both the respondents filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), Patna, who had uphe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f other evidences, confirmed the charges against the respondents. He has submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not taking into consideration the other circumstantial evidences into consideration, while allowing the appeals filed by the Respondents before him. The contention of the learned AR is that merely due to non-production of panch-witnesses, it cannot vitiate the entire proceeding. However, he has fairly conceded that in the first round of litigation, it was the specific direction of this Tribunal to allow cross-examination of the panch-witnesses and the said Order of the Tribunal had not been challenged before the higher authorities nor any time, the Department approached this Tribunal expressing its inability to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stoms area and the confessional statement was relied upon. In the present case, the appellants are disputing the place of recovery of the silver in question. As per the Revenue, the same is seized at Customs Land Station whereas the appellants' contention is that the same is seized at the Raxaul Bus Station. In the circumstances, the cross examination of the panch witnesses is necessary. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of cross examination of the panch witnesses and an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. Both sides are at liberty to raise their submissions at the time of hearing. Both the appeals are allowed by ....