TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 391
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt for the contravention of Section 9(1)(f)(i) of FERA 1973. This Tribunal passed an order dated 02.09.2005 whereby dispensation was allowed to the Appellant of 80% of the amount of penalty requiring the Appellant to make pre-deposit of 20% of the amount of penalty. It is on record that the Appellant made such pre-deposit as per the direction of the Tribunal. It is also on record that the Appellant expired on 28.03.2008 and his legal heir and widow Smt. Lata Bajoria came to substitute the deceased Appellant. For one reason or the other the Appeal got adjourned/thereafter. 2. In the impugned order, Ld. Adjudicating Authority has imposed penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- on Shri Keshav Bangur and Rs. 50,00,000/-on the Appellant Shri Arun Kumar Ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hri AK Jain in his letter dated 28.07.1997. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant contended, during the course of final hearing on 06.03.2024, that the principles of natural justice have been violated and the opportunity of cross-examination has been denied in the adjudication proceedings. He pleaded that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority did not allow the cross-examination of Shri Keshav Bangur. He cited the judgment dated 17.09.2015 of Delhi High Court in the matter of Flevel International v. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 294/52 GST 827/[CEAC 6 of 2013]. The judgment (supra) has observed that the denial of the opportunity of the cross-examination is to be as an exception, otherwise it would vitiate the order of adjudication. He further cited the j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nded the hearings on 11.11.2003 and 19.11.2003. On request, the hearing was fixed on 29.09.2004 in Kolkata, however, had to be adjourned on request from the Appellant side. Despite granting further opportunities on 27.10.2004 and 19.11.2004, neither the advocates nor the noticees attended the hearings. 6. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court dismissed the Writ Petition No. 1163 of 2005 filed by Shri Keshav Bangur on 06.04.2016. Following two paragraphs of Order are relevant and quoted here under : "The petitioner has, therefore, knowing fully well of the pendency of the proceedings has sought to take shelter under a so-called medical ground. The documents do not support the claim of the petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing in paragraph 38 of the impugned Order: "38. In the matter of the Advocates demand for cross-examination of the witnesses as well as the officers who recorded the statements, the issue had been discussed at length and there are decisions favouring as well as against allowing the same. However, the moot point emerged from the various decisions is that the person accused of violating the provisions of the FERA, 1973 cannot claim for cross-examination as a matter of right. The authority is bound under law to supply copies of those statements of the persons whose statements were relied upon as evidence in issuing the SCN. Once those records are provided to the noticees, the Adjudicating Authority had discharged his legal obligatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nspect the same. The production of the documents is not subjected to cross-examination. Such being the case, the refusal of the adjudicating authority to permit cross-examination of the witnesses producing the documents cannot even on the principles of the Evidence Act be found fault with. At any rate, the disclosure of the documents to the appellants and the opportunity given to them to rebut and explain the same was a substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice. That being so there was and could be no prejudice to the appellants nor was any demonstrated by the appellants before us or before the courts below. The third limb of the case of the appellants also in that view fails and is rejected." 10. Ld. Adjudicating Aut....