Jugal Kishore Soni Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. we have heard the learned counsel, shri harbans singh for the appellants and shri mewa singh, ld. s.d.r. for the revenue. the issue involved is seizure of silver weighing 13.684 kg. on 17-5-1990 and its confiscation by the additional commissioner of central excise & customs, jaipur, which has been upheld by the commissioner of customs (appeals), new delhi in the impugned order. we find that there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel that there has been failure to afford reasonable opportunity to the appellants in these cases. they had, in their reply to the show cause notice, asked for cross-examination of the witnesses to the panchnama of the seizing officers and of the experts who gave opinion about the silver. the learned counsel in this regard cited the final order of the bench no.a/260-262/93-nrb, dated 7-4-1993 in the case of yaru khan and ors. v.collector of customs, jaipur. in that case, the tribunal held in similar circumstances, that the appellants not having been given an opportunity of cross-examination, there was a failure to comply with the principles of natural justice. the tribunal had remanded the matter. the present case is similar although we note the submissions made by the learned s.d.r. that during the adjudication proceedings, the experts had filed affidavit going back on their earlier opinion and that their cross-examination might yield more or less the same result.however, there is still the question of giving an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses to the panchnama, there is nothing to indicate in the impugned order whether the request has been considered at all. therefore, the plea that fuller opportunity should be given to the appellants to put-forth their case, is well founded. hence, the matters are remanded to the jurisdictional and adjudication authority at jodhpur for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. the jurisdictional adjudicating authority will pass a fresh order according to law. the appeals are disposed in the above terms.

Judgment:
1. We have heard the learned Counsel, Shri Harbans Singh for the appellants and Shri Mewa Singh, ld. S.D.R. for the Revenue. The issue involved is seizure of silver weighing 13.684 kg. on 17-5-1990 and its confiscation by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur, which has been upheld by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi in the impugned order. We find that there is substance in the contention of the learned Counsel that there has been failure to afford reasonable opportunity to the appellants in these cases. They had, in their reply to the show cause notice, asked for cross-examination of the witnesses to the Panchnama of the Seizing Officers and of the experts who gave opinion about the silver. The learned Counsel in this regard cited the Final Order of the Bench No.A/260-262/93-NRB, dated 7-4-1993 in the case of Yaru Khan and Ors. v.Collector of Customs, Jaipur. In that case, the Tribunal held in similar circumstances, that the appellants not having been given an opportunity of cross-examination, there was a failure to comply with the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal had remanded the matter. The present case is similar although we note the submissions made by the learned S.D.R. that during the adjudication proceedings, the experts had filed affidavit going back on their earlier opinion and that their cross-examination might yield more or less the same result.

However, there is still the question of giving an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses to the panchnama, There is nothing to indicate in the impugned order whether the request has been considered at all. Therefore, the plea that fuller opportunity should be given to the appellants to put-forth their case, is well founded. Hence, the matters are remanded to the jurisdictional and adjudication authority at Jodhpur for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. The jurisdictional adjudicating authority will pass a fresh order according to law. The appeals are disposed in the above terms.