2017 (1) TMI 344

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....msp;The petitioner in W.P. No. 23984 of 2015 is the Managing Director of M/s. Surana Corporation Limited and the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 23985 & 23986 of 2015 are the employees of the said Company. The petitioners have come forward with these writ petitions for quashing the order passed by the respondent dated 21-7-2015 and to direct the respondent to permit them to cross-examine all the three witnesses namely Mr. Vadiga Sathyanarayana, Mr. P. Balaji and Mr. Santhoshishwar Chandan Shive. 3. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) have seized 8 pieces of Gold Bars from one Vadiga Sathyanarayana. Based on the seizure, enquiries were made with M/s. SLN Securities and Forex Private Limited, Sowcarpet, Chennai; documents were seized....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er. 4. In the impugned order, it has been stated that providing an opportunity to cross-examination of witness is not mandatory and in support of such conclusion, the respondent referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanungo & Co. v. Collector [1983 (13) E.L.T. 1486 (S.C.)]. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been filed. 5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the materials placed on record, including the counter affidavits filed by the respondent, the only issue to be considered in this case is as to whether the respondent is justified in rejecting the request made by the petitioners to cross-examine the three persons whose names have been mentioned abo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cating the show cause notices, if the respondent propose to rely any of those statements, the petitioners should be given fair opportunity, because the show cause notices appear to be solely based upon the statements recorded from those three persons. Therefore, in my view, the facts of the present case would require opportunities to the petitioners to cross-examine those three persons, in the event the respondent proposes to rely upon their statements. If the respondent does not propose to rely upon those statements while adjudicating the show cause notices, then the question of affording an opportunity of cross-examination would not arise. However, for that reason, the petitioners should submit their reply to the show cause notices and at....