Sunil Garg Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Appeal is filed against penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority under section 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is contradiction in the statement of the appellant as well as the third party. Therefore, these statements cannot be solely relied upon for the imposition of penalty. She submits that except the contradictory statements there is no independent evidence against the appellant.
CESTAT held that in view of the fact that statements are contradictory the witnesses must have been examined/ cross-examined to bring the truth on record to do the justice for imposition of penalty. Therefore CESTAT held that one opportunity can be given to re-consider the whole case of the appellant and after allowing the cross- examination a fresh order needs to be passed.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
This appeal is directed against the order of the commissioner (appeals) whereby the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority under section 112 (a) and 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty was imposed in connection with an offence case booked against M/s Rasna Corporation on the charge of mis-declaration of the goods in as much as the imported goods declared is ‘coco husk’ whereas on examination it was found the same as mixture of coco husk and coco powder. For imposing penalty the heavy reliance is made on the statements of the appellant as well as on the third party statement of Shri Shekhar Nuruddin Rashid. Against the imposition of penalty the appeal was filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also upheld the penalty and rejected the appeal. Therefore, the present appeal.
2. Ms. Reena Rawat, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is contradiction in the statement of the appellant as well as the third party . Therefore, these statements cannot be solely relied upon for the imposition of penalty. She submits that except the contradictory statements there is no independent evidence against the appellant. Therefore, the penalty was wrongly imposed. She placed reliance on the following judgments:
