Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)Section 113 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 119 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 140 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 144 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Santanu Ray vs Union Of India on 12 August, 1988
Similarly, statement of only Shri Rajesh
Khanna was recorded and no statements were recorded from Shri S.V.
Dhaneshwar and Shri Vinod Kumar Khanna. Even in the Show Cause
Notice, there is no allegation of any direct or indirect involvement by
them in the alleged transaction. Unless a specific role is established,
the penalty imposed against appellant No. 4 and 5 cannot sustain. To
support this argument, he relied upon the decision in the case of
Santanu Ray Vs. Union of India reported in 1988 (38) ELT 264 (Del.).
The learned counsel prayed that the appeals may be allowed.
The Customs Act, 1962
The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Section 11 in The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
C.C.E., Allahabad vs M/S K.M. Sugar Mills Ltd on 6 January, 2010
16. Further, the appellant had requested for cross-examination of
Shri S. Kumar, Consulate General of India, Hong Kong. So also request
to cross-examine the investigating officers of DRI was made before the
adjudicating authority. These requests were not heeded to by the
department. The right to cross-examine the officials whose report has
been relied, having been denied, the same cannot be used as evidence
to hold the appellant guilty of export of prohibited goods. To support
this argument, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of
Allahabad in the case of CCE, Allahabad Vs. Govind Mills Ltd. reported
in 2013 (294) ELT 361 (All.)
1