TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 257
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmy 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 Act and to recover exports benefits i.e. duty drawback granted towards the past exports as well as to impose penalty. 04-The show cause notice was issued on 12/08/2014 and the petitioner filed a reply denying the allegations and made a request for summoning the witnesses for their examination under Section 138-B of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner submitted various letters and again wrote a letter on 05/04/2016 reiterating the request made earlier. The petitioner, thereafter, vide communication dated 11/04/2016, 22/08/2016 and 19/09/2016 informed the Department that the he has not received any reply of his preliminary reply wherein a request was made to examine the witnesses. Hence, he is unable to file his final submission in the matter. 05-The petitioner further stated that he has filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el for the petitioner has stated that impugned order without applying the provision of Section 138-B of the Customs Act is void ab initio. It has also been argued that the statement of witnesses could have been relevant only in cases of eventuality as stated under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 without there being cross-examination and therefore, as no eventuality has taken place denial of right of cross-examination vitiates the order passed by the respondent. A prayer has been made for quashment of 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, Sky....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others reported in (2014) 15 SCC 44, M/s. R. S. Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise passed by this Court in Central Excise Appeal No.24/2012 on 08/02/2017 and G. Bassi Reddy Vs. International Crops Research Institute and Another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 225. 14-Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 15-This Court has also gone through all the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice-cum-demand notice under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. The material on the basis of which the custom authorities have relied was set out and it was also given to the petitioner to give a suitable explanation. It is nobody's case that the petitioner was not permitted to participate in the proceedings. He has appeared before the authorities on numerous occasions. All his objections have been considered and thereafter, a very exhaustive order has been passed in the matter. 16-Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that principles of natural justice and fair play have not been followed and his contention is tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ivered in the case of M/s. Kanungo & Company, which is prior in time has been overruled. 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 parts of the country and by a detailed reasoning assigned by the Commissioner, he has justified his action in not summoning the witnesses as prayed by the petitioner. 20-This Court is not commenting upon the aforesaid issue and upon the findings given by the learned Commissioner, as the petitioner is having an alternative remedy of preferring an appeal befo....