Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)Section 138B in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Mahek Glazes Pvt Ltd & vs Union Of India & on 28 February, 2013
He would also submit that the Honble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Mahek Glazes Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2014 (300) ELT 25 (Guj.) has stated that if request for cross-examination is made, it has to be dealt with separately and cannot be rejected in the adjudication order. It is his submission that the provisions of Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962 should be followed in its entirety as per the decision of the Honble High Courts.
Cce, Delhi-Iii vs M/S. Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt.Ltd on 30 September, 2015
Recently, Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE Delhi v. Kuber Tobacco India Ltd. in Final Order No. 50938-50942/2016 dated 04.03.2015 has considered the provisions of Section 9B and Section 138B of the Central Excise Act and Customs Act as regards the examination and cross-examination of the persons making statement. After following the law as laid down in final order No.50938 50942/2016 the Tribunal recorded as under:-
Section 114 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Customs Act, 1962
M/S. Agrawal Round Rolling Mills Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T. Raipur on 26 May, 2014
6.2 As regards penalty imposed on other appellants it is his submission that the findings of the authority are very sketchy and are totally incorrect inasmuch as the penalties had to be imposed on these appellants is based upon the statement recorded on Shri Balwinder Arora which indicates / implicates these appellants by stating that these people were aware that Shri Balwinder Arora was exporting potassium chloride as calcium chloride. It is his submission that all these appellants have sought cross examination of Shri Balwinder Arora in order to bring on record that appellants had no idea Shri Balwinder Arora wanted to export potassium chloride as calcium chloride. He submits that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Agrawal Round Rolling Mills Ltd. v. CCE 2015 (317) ELT 145 (Tri. Del.) relying on the judgement of J & K Cigarette Ltd. 2009 (242) ELT 189 (Del.) lays down the law that cross-examination if asked for should be granted if reliance is placed on such a statement.
1