TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1591
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Sl No 5 in the annexure to Panchnama dated 12.08.2004, the details of clearances to various party's without preparation of invoice has been shown; pages 1 to 78 of the said book have been torn and destroyed by them; on page 79 dated 7.08.2004 clearances made to M/s Radhesham Soni Ballarpur, on page 80 and 8 clearance made to Erode and on page 82 dated 10.08.2004 goods cleared to M/s Ashish Plastics have been indicated; b Notebook at Sl No 8 contained the details date wise stock of raw material in their factory; c. Notebook at Sl No 9 contained details of labour charges for the raw material received in their factory and for the sale of finished products outstation; d. Notebook at Sl No 10 contained the details of party wise clearance of finished goods without making any invoice e. Notebook at Sl No 11 contained the details of production of finished goods party wise. The said goods have been actually cleared to the sauid party's without making any invoice; f. Notebooks at Sl No 12 & 13 contained the production of finished goods for the period 25.07.2004 to 2.08.2004 & 3.08.2004 to 12.08.2004 respectively; g Notebook at Sl No 15 contained the details of daily expen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3 M/s Sarda Packaging 1,50,000 4,50,000 13,50,000 4 M/s Bharat Plastics 8,000 96,000 5 M/s Mukesh Sales 1,75,000- 2,00,000 24,00,000 24,00,000 6 M/s Aadinath Traders 25,000 50,000 3,00,000 7 M/s Aalumal Jayaramdas 1,000 12,000 8 Shri Radheshyam Soni 25,000 - 30,000 3,60,000 9 M/s Yogita Plastics 8,000 96,000 1,20,000 10 M/s Sham Plastics 2,000 36,000 11 M/s M Traders 10,000 1,20,000 12 M/s Shyam Distributor 5,000 15,000 13 M/s Mohsin Plastics 8,000 1,20,000 Total 32,96,000 58,29,000 A Value of Clearances as per Balance Sheet 89,97,866 89,47,022 B Value of Goods cleared clandestinely 32,96,000 58,29,000 C Total Value of Clearances = A+B 1,22,93,866 147,86,022 D Exempted Clearances under SSI Notification 1,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 E Value of Dutiable Clearances = C-D 22,93,866 47,76,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssions. Accordingly he made written submissions on 12.10.2007. In the written submissions they again pointed out to the denial of natural justice by not allowing the cross examination of the eleven purchasers, stating- "At the outset it is submitted that the noticee had sought the cross examination of the 11 buyers in its application dated 23.07.2007. However the cross examination of these persons was not allowed by the adjudicating authority thereby resulting in denial of natural justice to the noticee, The statements of these 11 persons cannot be relied upon since they were not produced for cross examination ..." 8.0 After considering the submissions made adjudicating authority decided the matter confirming the demand of duty of Rs. 11,81,582/- along with the interest at applicable rate. He also imposed a penalty equivalent to the duty evaded on the appellant and appropriated sum of Rupees Three Lakhs paid by the appellants. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed on Shri Ram Ratan Sarda, Partner. 9.0 Commissioner (Appeal) upheld the order of adjudicating authority hence this appeal. Have heard Shri O P Khanduja Advocate and Shri N N Prabhudesai Superintendent (AR) in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of one raw material supplier and two purchasers of finished goods. After these cross examinations appellant has himself filed the written submission seek cross examination of all the witnesses and alleged denial of natural justice by the adjudicating authority accordingly. He thus submitted that order of Commissioner (Appeal) and adjudicating authority cannot be faulted on this account. 12.0 We have considered the submissions made by both the sides including all the case laws referred by them. In our view the issue for decision is in very narrow compass whether the denial of cross examination of the witnesses by the adjudicating authority has prejudicially impacted the right of the appellant to put forth a proper defence in the matter. From the Annexure to show cause notice reproduced in Table 2 above it is quite evident that the quantum of clearances have been determined on the basis of monthly purchases stated by the buyers of the goods in their statements recorded. The quantum of purchase so stated in the statement is not further corroborated. In such a situation when the entire demand against the appellant is based on the uncorroborated statement of purchasers of the fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccused under the Act. [2] he becomes accused of the offence under the Act only when a complaint is laid by the competent customs officer in the court of competent jurisdiction or magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and summons are issued. thereafter, he becomes a person accused of the offence. [3] A statement recorded or given by the person suspected of having committed an offence during the inquiry under Section 108 of the Act or during confiscation proceedings is not a person accused of the offence within the meaning of Section 24 of the Evidence Act. [4] Though the Customs Officer is an authority within the meaning of Section 24 of the Evidence Act, by reason of statutory compulsion of recording the statement or the accused giving voluntary statement pursuant to his appearing either after issuance of summons or after the appellant's surrender, such statement cannot be characterised to have been obtained by threat, inducement or promise. [5] The collection of evidence under Section 108 and other relevant provisions relating to search and seizure are only for the purpose of taking further steps for confiscation of contraband and imposition of penalty. [....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tunity to cross-examine them, was violative of the principle of natural justice. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition. In that context, it was held that his retracted confession within six days from the date of the confession was not before a Police Officer. The Custom Officers are not police officers. Therefore, it was held that "the confession, though retracted, is an admission and binds the petitioner. So there is no need to call Panch witnesses for examination and cross-examination by the petitioner". As noted, the object of the Act is to prevent large-scale smuggling of precious metals and other dutiable goods and to facilitate detection and confiscation of smuggled goods into, or out of the country. The contraventions and offences under the Act are committed in an organised manner under absolute secrecy. They are white-collar crimes upsetting the economy of the country. Detection and confiscation of the smuggled goods are aimed to check the escapement and avoidance of customs duty and to prevent perpetration thereof. In an appropriate case when the authority thought it expedient to have the contraveners prosecuted under Section 135 etc., separate procedure of filing....