TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1089
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal is right in not considering the fact that the present appellant is in jail since November, 1993 in connection with the very case till 5.9.2006 till the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India acquitted the present appellant and confirming the order of penalty of Rs.10 lacs imposed on the appellant in violation of the principles of natural justice? (D) Whether the Tribunal is right in the facts and circumstances of the case to impose the penalty by impugned penalty order dated 11.5.2006 relying on the statement of co-noticee which was recorded by the D.R.I. Before issuance of show cause notice under the provisions of The Customs Act, 1962?" 4. The CESTAT disposed of total three Appeals arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 10/COMMR/1999 dated 30th March, 1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad. The other two Appeals disposed of by the CESTAT i.e. Tax Appeal Nos. 927 of 2007 and 928 of 2007 were also tagged along with this Appeal. 5. This Appeal is disposed of separately as the appellant, who was a Doctor by profession and was found involved in manufacturing of contraband drugs, was convicted by the Trial Court and the Appeal filed by the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mahesh Shah was proprietor of M/s. Advance Export, though he did not know any other address of the M/s. Advanced Export and in course of the interrogation of Shri Mahesh Shah, he admitted that his correct name was Achint Navinbhai Patel and he posed as Mahesh Shah being proprietor of M/s. Advance Export so as to escape safely in case the goods are caught and his motive to open the firm was to export Mandrax tablets in the guise of medicines. It was also admitted by him in his statement that he was working on instruction of one Yogesh Chaudhari and that one Bupendra Bhatia had fabricated the export orders in name of M/s. Pharco Kenya Limited. 6.6. On the basis of the statement of Mr. Achint Patel that the Methaqualone tablets were supplied by the appeallent-Dr. Bipin Panchal, the appellant was summoned on 06.11.1993 to record his statement, where he admitted the supply of Mandrax tables to Mr. Achint Patel in May, 1993. It was also stated in his statement that the tablets were manufactured at Coral Pharma, Kheda and the same were manufactured by one Sri Kashyap Patel of Ruchi Pharma, Patan with the help of one Shri Deepak of Coral Pharma. 6.7. The Managing Director of Coral Ph....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce dated 13th January, 1997 was issued upon (i) M/s. Advance Exports, (ii) Achint N. Patel @ Mahesh Sureshbhai Shah, (iii) Dr. Bipin S. Panchal, (iv) Shri Bhupendra Bhatia, (v) Shri Kashyap Patel, (vi) Yogesh Chaudhari and (vii) Piyush Pandya asking them to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. 6.13. In response to the show-cause notice, Achint Patel, Kashyap Patel and Piyush Pandya submitted reply dated 17th February, 1997 denying all the allegations and charges levelled against them. 6.14. However, Dr. Bipin Panchal, Bhupendra Bhatia and Yogesh Chaudhari did not file any reply to the show-cause notice in spite of the repeated reminders issued by the Adjudicating Authority. During the personal hearing, only Kashyap Patel and Piyush Pandya appeared and submitted similar written submissions and requested for cross-examination of all the witnesses and Officers without giving any specific names and grounds/disputed facts and on being asked, they did not mention anything on this aspect and therefore, the Adjudicating Authority rejected such request on the ground that it was only to delay the adjudication proceedin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e factual matrix of the matter or the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court of the High Court in arriving at their conclusions. We may, however, notice that seven persons were charge-sheeted for commission of the aforementioned offences. Indisputably, each one of them was charged with section 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Whereas accused Nos. 4 & 5 were acquitted by the learned Trial Court, accused Nos. 6 & 7 have since been acquitted by the High Court. Although conviction of accused No. 3 has been upheld by the High Court but he has been sentenced to the period already undergone. He is not before us. The State did not prefer any appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court against accused Nos. 4 & 5. The State has not preferred any appeal against the orders of acquittal passed by the High Court so far as accused Nos. 6 & 7 are concerned. Even no appeal has been filed in regard to the quantum of sentence imposed upon accused No. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants states that the appellants, who are original accused Nos. 1 & 2, have already undergone an incarceration for about....