PATEL ENGINEERING LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful Assessee. The Appellant impugns the concurrent findings rendered by the Adjudicating Authority and equally by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order dated 17th January/20th February 2013 and submits that the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and equally by the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal raises substantial questions of law.

(2.) ON conclusion of the investigation, a show cause notice dated 18.08.2004 was issued to the Appellant, wherein it was proposed to confiscate the goods valued at Rs. 2,06,70,660/ - under the provisions of Sections 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and to impose penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act and also proposing to deny duty exemption contained in Notification No. dated 01.04.2003 in respect of the subject goods and to assess the goods on merit rate of duty and also demanding interest thereon. The notice also proposed to impose penalties on Shri. D.M. Pradhan, Chartered Engineer under Section 112(a), on Shri Rakesh Handa, of the CHA firm M/s. Shobha Prompt Services Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Liebherr Export AG India Office and Shri Pulok Gupta, Manager, Shri Mani Shankar Singh, Asstt. Chief Engineer of M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Shri B.K. Chakraborty, Vice President of M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The case was adjudicated by the impugned order. The goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 40 lakhs. The benefit of Notification No. was denied and the goods were ordered to be assessed on merits and differential duty was demanded under Section 28 along with interest thereon under Section 28AB. A personal penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs each was imposed on the appellant firm M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. and M/s. Liebherr Export AG India office under Section 112(a). Penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs each was imposed on Shri B.K. Chakraborty, Vice President of the appellant firm, Shri Pulok Gupta, Manager of the supplier's India Office and Shri D.M. Pradhan, Chartered Engineer. A penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs was imposed on Shri Rakesh Handa, the proprietor of CHA firm. A penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed on Shri Mani Shankar Singh Asst. Chief Engineer of the appellant firm. It is against this order, the appellants are before us.

(3.) IT is then submitted that grave and serious prejudice has been caused on account of the approach of the Tribunal and prior to that of the Adjudicating Authority. The report of experts, rather a panel which was set up, was placed before these authorities. The request of the Appellant was to permit cross examination of the members of the expert panel so as to demonstrate that the findings in the report are erroneous. This request, which was reasonable, has been denied. In these circumstances, the entire procedure was faulty, erroneous in law and has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. Therefore, breach of principles of natural justice and equally the refusal of the authorities to abide by the law laid down by this Court in the case of M/s. Kellogg India Pvt. Ltd. v/s Union of India reported in : 2006(193) Excise Law Time 385 (Bom.), would enable this Court to entertain this Appeal. A copy of the judgment in the case of M/s. Kellogg India Pvt. Ltd. is placed on record. Equally, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Gujrat High Court in the case of Mahek Glazes Pvt. Ltd. v/s Union of India reported in : 2014(300) Excise Law Time page 25 and of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Basudev Garg V/s Commissioner of Customs reported in : 2013(294) Excise Law Time page 353.