VIJAY CHANDRAKANT MULCHANDANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions arise in common background. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common order.

(2.) We may record facts from Special Civil Application No.2815 of 2017. The petitioner is a trader involved in the business of trading in industrial salts and various chemicals including Technical Grade Urea (for short, "TGU"). The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is involved in dealing in Agricultural Grade Urea ("AGU" for short) and in any case had never diverted AGU for industrial use.

(3.) Investigation was carried out at various premises including that of the petitioner by the department on the basis that there had been diversion of AGU for industrial use. This culminated into issuance of show cause notices including against the petitioner. Against the petitioner, the show cause notice is dated 25.5.2015. In a rather detailed notice the authority confronted the petitioner with voluminous material to establish such clandestine diversion of AGU. Under the notice, the petitioner was called upon to show cause why various penalties prescribed under the Customs Act , 1962 should not be imposed on them. In the show cause notice, reference was made to several statements of the co-noticees and other individuals recorded by the authority on which reliance was sought to be placed for proving the charge against the petitioner. The petitioner replied to such show cause notice under a communication. The reply carried a caption of the subject "Preliminary reply, including Preliminary Objections, to the maintainability of the above SCN, & Request for Cross Examination of Various Persons, by Mr.Mulchandani". In the reply, the petitioner had taken various defences. The petitioner pointed out that in the show cause notice the department had placed heavy reliance on statements of various persons recorded during the course of investigation. The inculpatory statements have been withdrawn by the deponents. Even independent persons, whose statements were recorded and sought to be relied upon, have retracted their statements at the first available opportunity. The petitioner, therefore, in paragraph 57 of the reply stated as under:-