Majhar Muzaffar Hussain Sayed Vs C.C.-Mundra (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
It is seen that all three notices have denied any knowledge of the transaction of presence of cigarettes in the containers. There is no specific primary evidence produced by revenue, except the statements, to establish that the notices were aware of the presence of cigarettes in the container. It was argued by Learned Counsel for Majhar Bhai that they had demanded the cross-examination of witnesses however the same was not allowed. Learned counsel argued that no reliance can be placed on the statements if cross-examination has not been allowed. Since it is seen that there no major evidence other than the statements has been produced about the knowledge of the appellants about presence of the cigarettes in the container. It is on paramount importance that the statements are properly tested with cross-examination.
Since Cross-examination is not granted the impugned order is set aside and matters are remanded for fresh decision after giving opportunity of cross examination to the appellants. The appeals are allowed by way of remand to original adjudicating authority.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
These appeals have been filed by M/s. Majhar Muzaffar Hussain Sayed, Nathalal Kanjibhai Rathod and Jatin Kumar Nathalal Rathod, against imposition of penalty.
2. Nathala Kanjibhai Rathod and Jatin Kumar Nathalal Rathod are father and son and have been charged with dealing in the imported goods/cigarettes as alleged in the impugned OIO. DRI had visited M/s. Saurashtra CFS on 17.08.2016 and checked container No. CRXU3199110. On this Re-stuffing the container under Panchnama dated 17.08.2016, it was found to contain white woven PP bags containing ‘Readymade Garments’ and white PP bags were containing 2 corrugated boxes with cigarettes. The total quantity of cigarettes recovered was as follow:-
