TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 60
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a and Mr. Gagan Vaswani Advocates for respondents. O R D E R REVIEW PET. 40/2016 in CUSAA-29/2011, REVIEW PET. 72/2016 in CUSAA-32/2011, REVIEW PET. 41/2016 in CUSAA-33/2011, REVIEW PET. 555/2015 and C.M. Nos. 27176/2015, 27177/2015, 27178/2015. 18392/2016 & 18394/2016 in CUSAA-34/2011, REVIEW PET. 607/2015 in CUSAA-35/2011, REVIEW PET. 33/2017 in CUSAA-36/2011, REVIEW PET. 34/2017 in CUSAA-37/2011, & REVIEW PET. 106/2018 in CUSAA-38/2011 1. We have heard Mr. Ramesh Gupta as well as Mr. Vikas Pahwa - learned Sr. Counsels for the review applicants. 2. The primary grounds on which these Review Applications have been preferred are that Mr. R. N. Zutshi had not named the Review Applicants in his statement recorded on 17.01.2001. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Implicated by whom If calls made with any other non-Customs individual involved and if so, who Phone Numbers 1. Sudhir Sharma 4.75 Yes, R.N. Zutshi Yes, to Mamoor Khan (95 calls) 1 with Dil Agha and 7 with Shaloo (Total 103). 9811240981; 9810175926; 9811022679 6518658 (landline) 2. R.N. Zutshi 12 Yes, Dil Agha Yes, 98 calls (62 Mamoor Khan and 28 Dil Agha) 9810136977; 63222294 (landline) 3. Ajay Yadav 2.4 Yes, R.N. 4. V.K. Khurana 7.0 R.N. Zuthi Dil Agha Yes 49 calls (39 with Dil Agha and 5 with Mamoor Khan) 9811028228; 5815626 (landline) 5. Yashpal 6.0 R.N. Zutshi Yes, 37 calls (34 Mamoor Khan, 1 Dil Agha, 2 Shaloo) 9810196092; 725....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the SCNs. Furthermore, they had also not given any convincing or reasonable explanation for the phone calls received from Mamoor Khan, Dil Agha, Olga, etc. In the circumstances, the findings of the lower authorities that they were not prejudiced, and that principles of natural justice were not violated, cannot be interfered with." 8. Thus, even if - for the sake of argument, we were to proceed on the basis that the review applicants were not named by Mr. R. N. Zutshi in his confessional statement, that would not be sufficient to review our judgment, as we have to also assess the impart thereof in the final determination. Since there was independent evidence available on record, which was sufficient to find the appellants' involvement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whom the corresponding Show Cause Notice dated 21.08.2001 was assigned vide CBEC order dated 10.11.2006. b. That on account of order dated 10.11.2006 issued by CBEC, the case file relating to Show Cause Notice dated 24.08.2001 was transferred to the Commissioner of Customs(Adj.) at room no. 217, New Customs House because in room no. 217, the Commissioner of Customs(Adj.) used to sit where the Petitioner has submitted replies and attended hearing. c. That as a matter of fact Gurbans Singh was holding charge of Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication) as well as Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) and was posted at New Customs House, IGI Hew Delhi. His name reflects in the departmental contact list called "Sampark 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in supersession of notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), number 47/97-Customs (N.T.), dated the 19th September, 1997 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number GSR. 559(E), dated the 19th September, 1997, the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby appoints,- 1. Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), Mumbai; 2. Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), Chennai; 3. Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), Delhi and 4. Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), Kolkata. as Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), for the purposes of adjudicating the cases as assign....