Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Vasant Maganlal Chokshi, Harish F. ... vs Commissioner Of Customs (Prev), ... on 7 August, 2001
ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical)
1. Adjournment is requested by the counsel for Harish F. Shah on the ground that he has an appeal today before the Chennai bench. It has not been explained to us why the matter at Chennai should take precedence before the matter here. There are applications of ten persons before us represented by two counsel from out of town. We therefore decline to adjourn.
2. Applications are for waiver of deposit of penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Act on each of the Appellants. The department's officers seized from the premises of Kirit Maganlal Chokshi Kirtibhai M. Chokshi, Ramnayan Pandey are partners) gold weighing 997 gms. The Commissioner has ordered confiscation on the ground that this gold was smuggled and imposed penalty on each of the applicants before us for having dealt with the gold.
3. The order has been passed by Mr. K.M. Tiwari in his capacity as Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad. Both the counsels present before us claim that on the first occasion on which the matter came us before him, they asked for adjournment and this request was declined. The Commissioner's order does not refer to any such incident and says that 'necessary hearing' was granted and cross examination allowed. This is denied by both these counsels. The letter dated 6.9.2000 of Mr. Gajendra Naik is seen to have been acknowledged by, he says, an officer of the department on 5.9.2000, the 5 being overwritten over earlier 6. Mr. Naik is unable to explain this. However letter dated 7.9.2000 of Mr. Deven Parekh seeking adjournment on account of illness has been acknowledged on the same date by the Commissioner's office. Adjournment for the first tme on the ground of illness ought, in our opinion, to have been granted. Since the liability to penalty of the other person depended upon the Commissioner accepting or not accepting explanation to be tendered by Mr. Parekh's clients from whom the gold was seized, the case against them could not be decided properly considering his clients' case. The departmental representative has no material to contradict what these counsel say.
4. We therefore take up the appeals for disposal after waiving deposit. The Commissioner's order is set aside and the appeals allowed. The Commissioner shall adjudicate the matter of each of the appellant after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. We have made it clear to counsel for the appellants, and they agree, that they will not seek, or the Commissioner grant, adjournment on flimsy grounds. The Commissioner shall thereafter pass orders in accordance with law.