TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (10) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me were seized by the officers of the Central Excise department on the ground that the same were not accompanied by proper invoices. After investigation, issue of show cause notice and adjudication proceedings, the Commissioner in his impugned order confiscated the goods seized by the officers, demanded duty on the PTY meant for export but diverted to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) and also demanded duty on the POY used in the manufacture of PTY diverted to DTA, demanded interest and imposed penalties. The appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned order. 2. Before we proceed, we feel that it is necessary to give a brief background of the proceedings regarding the appeal filed by the present appellant as well as appeals filed by othe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eported that no miscellaneous application for restoration of appeal has been filed in respect of customs appeal by the appellants. Even though advocates for appellants were present on that day, they did not bring the fact of dismissal to the notice of the Bench and instead matter had to be adjourned on the ground of non-existing pendency. It is to be noted that this request never came though matter was listed several times earlier. 3. Even though appellants have not taken any interest to pursue the matter and did not even appear when the restoration application was listed for hearing and today also there is no representation, in the interest of justice this order is being passed on the basis of records before us and the submissions made by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....morandum, the appellants have stated that the request for cross-examination of all the concerned persons was not given and therefore there is a denial of principles of natural justice. We find that the whole case is based on the fact that the goods were actually seized with the trucks without documents and the officers had also found that the invoices did not accompany the goods and delivery challans were issued by a third person and goods were actually diverted illegally and in the face of these evidences, the requirement of cross-examination of a number of persons is not required to prove the case. The appellants also claimed that they have nothing to do with the goods and after they had cleared the goods, they were not responsible. They ....