TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (2) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y both sides and on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the impugned order suffers from denial of principles of natural justice. As it was rightly out by the Counsel the adjudicating authority has not given any reason in not allowing the cross-examination. In view of this position, we have no alternative but to send the mailer back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration. In the view we have taken, we are remanding the matter to the concerned adjudicating authority to examine the issue afresh and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on providing an opportunity to the party. Thus this appeal is disposed of in the above terms." 2. The main grievance of M/s. Sujana Steels Ltd. (M/s. SSL, for short), before t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962 together with interest as applicable under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 from M/s. Sujana Steels Ltd. (c) I order confiscation of 654.00 M/s of scrap imported under Notification No. 83/90-Cus. valued at Rs. 4,03,56,449/- under Section 111(o) of Customs Act, 1962. Since the goods are not avail able for confiscation, I impose a fine of Rs. 80,00,000/-(Rupees Eighty Lakhs only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 in lieu of confiscation. (d) I impose a penalty of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) on M/s. Sujana Steels Ltd. under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. In the case of M/s. Sujana Industries Ltd: (a) I deny the benefit of Customs Notification No. 83/90 claimed an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y thousand only) on Shri N.S. Aiyangar, Finance Manager of Sujana Steel Ltd. under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962." 4. M/s. SSL, appellants in Appeal No. C/571/2005, challenge the demand of differential duty confirmed against them and also the fine and penalty imposed on them. M/s. Sujana Industries Ltd. (M/s. SIL, for short), appellants in Appeal No. C/567/2005, have offered a similar challenge against the Commissioner's order demanding differential duty and imposing fine and penalty. The remaining appellants are challenging the penalties imposed on them. 5. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that M/s. SSL (a manufacturing unit) and M/s. SIL (trading unit) had imported a to- tat quantity of 11,762 MT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of diversion of the scrap is unfounded inasmuch as the end-use certificates issued by the jurisdictional Asst. Collector of Central Excise were produced by both the importers in respect of the above scrap, barring a small quantity (205 Mts) imported by M/s. SIL 6. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the said certificates were accepted by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-I, who dropped the proposal to deny Cenvat credit on the same scrap which was received in the manufacturing unit at Hyderabad after its clearance through Chennai port. It is submitted that the Commissioner at Hyderabad-I accepted the fact that the scrap so imported and cleared through Chennai port by M/s SSL and M/s. SIL was actually received in their....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... round of litigation, M/s. SSL and M/s. SIL wanted to cross-examine only 8 witnesses, whose names figure in Para 18 of the impugned order. Admittedly, two out of these eight persons were cross- examined before the Commissioner pursuant to the Tribunal's remand order. For one reason or other, the remaining six persons could not be cross-examined and the impugned order happened to be passed ex parte. We are not inclined to accept the suggestion that more than these six persons be allowed to be cross- examined in the next round. We have two reasons. Firstly, the plea for cross- examination of the extra number of 29 witnesses is a new plea as rightly pointed out by learned SDR and no exceptional reason or circumstance, not available or known wh....