TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 257
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rit petition, reveals that a show cause notice-cum-demand notice was issued under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner in association with others has exported the fabrics and ready-made garments by inflating the export value so as to avail undue and otherwise inadmissible export benefits advantage. It was also alleged that said exports were made in proxy dummy i.e. Code for Inland Container Deport, Dhannad and Kheda, District Dhar. The petitioner was the actual exporter of the same. 03-In the show cause notice it was proposed to reject the declared FOB value of such exports and to redetermine the same and to hold the petitioner as exporter of said goods in terms of Section 2(20) of the Customs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ention is that without passing a formal order and communicating it to the petitioner and without complying Section 138-B of the Customs Act, 1962, the respondents have passed the impugned order on 24/05/2018 received by the petitioner on 13/07/2018. 07-The petitioner raised various grounds before this Court and it has been stated that examination-in-chief and right of cross-examination is integral part of judicial process and any deviation from the same would render judicial proceeding void. It has also been argued that the order in original is neither sustainable on facts nor in law. It has been argued that in spite of repeated letters of request dated 23/02/2016, 05/04/2016, 11/04/2016, 22/08/2016, 19/09/2016, 28/09/2016 and 29/11/2017, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the impugned order. 10-Learned counsel for the petitioner to bolster his submissions has placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in the case of J & K Cigarettes Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise reported in 2009 (242) E.L.T. 189 (Del.), Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I Vs. Parmarth Iron Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2010 (260) E.L.T. 514 (All.), Kirit Shrimankar Vs. The Commissioner, CGST & Cenral Excise & Anr. passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.14380/2018 decided on 05/07/2018, Principal Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Vs. M.S.S. Foods Processors delivered by this Court in the case of Central Excise Appeal No.33/2016 decided on 18/05/2017, Skyrise Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port) re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice was neither legal nor supported by practice / precedent in the departmental adjudication proceedings. It has been stated that there were as many as 10 Panchnamas, 47 statements and 38 operations / visit reports on record and the number of total witnesses comes to 263 persons required to be summoned as prayed by the petitioner. There was no justification for making such a demand. 13-Respondents have placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in the case of M/s. Kanungo & Company Vs. Collector of Customs and Others reported in (1973) 2 SCC 438, Surjeet Singh Chhabra Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1997) 1 SCC 508, Telstar Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs. Enforcement Directorate reported in (2013) 9 SCC 549, Naresh J. Sukhawan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th a similar controversy and paragraph No.12 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "12. We may first deal with the question of breach of natural justice. On the material on record, in our opinion, there has been no such breach. In the show-cause notice issued on August 21, 1961, all the material on which the Customs Authorities have relied was set out and it was then for the appellant to give a suitable explanation. The complaint of the appellant now is that all the persons from whom enquiries were alleged to have been made by the authorities should have been produced to enable it to cross-examine them. In our-opinion, the principles of natural justice do not require that in matters like this the persons who have given information sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led. 18-Resultantly, there is no force in the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that in some of the judgments delivered by the Delhi High Court and other High Courts, the order passed by the adjudicating authority has been set aside on this ground or the matter has been remanded back on this Court, but the fact remains that the judgment delivered in the case of M/s. Kanungo & Company (Supra) holds the field good as on date. 19-The Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax has dealt with the issue of summoning all the witnesses before the adjudicating authority and he has assigned cogent reasons in the matter. The petitioner wanted to examine as many as 263 individuals from the different ....