TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 340
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umbai, contends that principles of natural justice had not been adhered to by the adjudicating authority. 2. According to Learned Counsel for appellant, he was one of the many noticees in a matter relating to export of pharmaceutical drugs by certain entities who, by manipulating/forging particulars in shipping bill, had allegedly obtained scrips under the 'Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme in the Foreign Trade Policy and the present dispute is specific to three of the 181 shipping bills in which the total FOB value of exports was substituted with the enhanced amounts of Rs. 29,14,59,690/-. It is pointed out by the Learned Counsel that it was alleged that, after the final assessment of the shipping bill was recorded by the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings under section 135 of Customs Act, 1962 and contends that this would suffice to immunize the appellant from any other penal action under Customs Act, 1962 also. He placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in Ram Wadhaya, Prahlad Nagar, Meerut v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut [1984 (15) ELT 492 (Tribunal)], holding that '5. It would appear to us on a perusal of the papers and on the submissions made in the course of the hearing that - (a) in the case of Kanungo & Co. v. Collector of Customs (1983 E.L.T. 1486), all that was held was that persons who have given information need not be examined in the presence of the person against whom the proceedings have been initiated and it is not a mandatory requirement that h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... frail character and its fallibilities have been quite often noticed. The Court should, therefore, be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of a handwriting expert [AIR 1973 S.C. 1346 - Bhagwan Kaur v. Shri Maharaj Krishan Sharma - citing A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 316]; (iii) the evidence of experts can never be conclusive as it is merely opinion evidence [(1963) 3 S.C.R. 722 - Ishwari Prasad v. Mohammad Isa]; (iv) the Court can, of course, refuse to rely upon the opinion of an expert which is unsupported by reasons (A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 488); (v) the Court must satisfy itself by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. One such means open to the Court is to apply its own observation to the admitted or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns in the account books. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that there is no material to sustain the penalty under Section 74 of the Act. We, therefore, allow the appeal and direct that the penalty in a sum of Rs. 5000, if paid, is to be refunded to the Appellant. Needless to say that the order of the adjudicating authority, in so far as the seized gold and gold ornaments are concerned, is not interfered with by us.', as relevant when penal proceedings rest entirely on expert opinion which is substantially different from controversies pertaining to relevancy of statements that are not tested in cross-examination. 3. Learned Authorised Representative submits that all these issues had been examined in detail by the adjudicating au....