Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   CBIC issues draft rules for Customs valuation *  Top Headlines: Threshold for Benami deals, green bond investors, and more *  Govt aims 1-hour clearance for goods at all ports *  Exporters Allowed To Use RoDTEP, RoSCTL Scrips To Pay Customs Duty, Transfer Them; Rules Amended *  Millions of labourers to be affected by brick producers’ strike over hike in GST, coal rates *  Inauguration of ‘kendriya GST parisar’ *  Transporter can seek Release of Conveyance alone, not Goods under GST Act: Madras HC *  GST: Quoting of DIN Mandatory for Responding to Notice, Govt Modifies Portal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  CBIC issues modalities for filing transitional credit under GST. *  Mumbai: Man creates 36 fake GST firms, arrested for input tax credit fraud of Rs 23 cr *  Report to restructure Commerce Ministry under study; idea is to set up trade promotion body: Goyal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  Gambling Alert! Govt May Levy Up To 28% GST; UP, Bengal Back Move *  EPFO backs raising retirement age to ease pressure on pension funds *  India Moving Up Power Scale, Set to Become Third Largest Economy By 2030 *  Airfares Get Expensive: What Changes for Flyers From Today? *  IRCTC Latest News: Passengers to Pay More For Cancelling Confirmed Rail Tickets Soon. *  IBC prevails over Customs Act, says Supreme Court. *  As GST enters sixth year, a time for evaluation and reassessment *  There’s GST on daily essentials as Centre needs money to buy MLAs: Arvind Kejriwal *  Now, GST on cancellation of confirmed train tickets, hotel bookings *  GST kitty for top States could rise 20% in FY23, says Crisil *  French customs officials seize another cargo vessel over Russia sanctions *  TradeLens builds on Asia momentum with Pakistan Customs deal *  Hike tax on tobacco, reduce affordability & increase revenue: Civil society organizations to GST council *  Bihar: ?10 crore tax evasion on tobacco products detected in raids *  Centre failed on GST, COVID; would it be anti-national? Rajan on Infosys row *  Service Tax not Chargeable on Income Tax TDS portion paid by recipient: CESTAT grants relief to TVS *  Foreign portfolio investors make net investment of Rs 7575cr in Sep so far
Subject News *  Run-up to Budget: Monetary threshold for GST offences may rise to Rs 25 cr *   GST (Tax) E-invoice Must For Businesses With Over Rs 5 Crore Annual Turnover *   Both Central GST and excise duty can be imposed on tobacco, rules Karnataka high court *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *  Budget 2023- 9.6 crore gas connections *  GST: Tamil Nadu Issues Instructions for Assessment and Adjudication Proceedings *  GST: CBIC Extends Last Date for filing of ITC *  GST collection in September surpasses Rs 1.4 lakh crore for straight seventh time *  Dollar smuggling case: Customs chargesheet names M Sivasankar as key conspirator. *  Hike in GST rates fuels inflation *  Assam: CBI arrests GST commissioner in Guwahati *  GST fraud worth ?824cr by 15 insurance Cos detected *  India proposes 15% customs duties on 22 items imported from UK *  Decriminalising certain offences under GST on cards *  Surge in GST collections more due to higher inflation: India Ratings *  MNRE Notifies BCD and Hike in GST Rates as ‘Change in Law’ Events But With a Condition | Mercom India *   Solar projects awarded before customs duty change allowed cost pass-through *  Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty *   GST revenue in September likely at Rs 1.45 lakh crore *  Govt working on decriminalising certain offences under GST, lower compounding charge *  Building an institution like GST Council takes time, trashing is easy: Sitharaman *  GST collections in Sept may touch ?1.5 lakh crore *  KTR asks Centre to withdraw GST on handlooms *  After Gameskraft, More Online Gaming Startups To Receive GST Tax Claims *  Madras HC: AAR Application Filed Under VAT Does Not Survive After GST Enactment *  Threshold for criminal offences under GST law may be raised *  Bengaluru: Gaming company faces biggest GST notice of Rs 21,000 crore *  CBIC clarifies Classification of Cranes for GST, Customs Duty *  Customs seize gold hidden in bicycle in Kerala airport  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1481

Failure of the department to produce Panch-witness for cross examination provides benefit of doubt to assessee.

Case:- COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV.), PATNA Versus SHRAWAN SAH
 
Citation:- 2013 (288) E.L.T. 443 (Tri. – Kolkata)
 
Brief Facts:-The Customs Of­ficers intercepted an at 19.15 hours near border check post with 15 silver bars weighing and valued while attempting to illegally export the same to Nepal. His statement was recorded under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein he had confessed that the goods belonged to one Shri Laxmi Prasad of Motihari. Consequently, the impugned goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and show cause notice was issued to the respondents. On adjudication, the impugned goods were confiscated under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty was imposed on Shri Laxmi Prasad and on Shra­wan Sah under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said Or­der, both the respondents filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), Patna, who had upheld the Order of the lower adjudicating authority. Ag­grieved, the respondents filed appeals before this Tribunal, and after hearing both sides, this Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority, vide its Order Nos. A-487-488/KOL/2009, dated 13-8-2009 [2009 (248) E.L.T. 489 (Tri. - Kol.)]. Consequently, the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Patna has adjudicated the case by confiscating the goods and imposing respective penalties on the Respondents. Aggrieved by the said Order of the Additional Commis­sioner dated 20-8-2008, the Respondents filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed their appeals by setting aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated 20-8-2008. Hence, Revenue is in ap­peal.
 
 
Appellant Contentions:-The Revenue has submitted that this is the second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, the Tribunal after con­sidering the facts and circumstances of the case had remanded it to the adjudicat­ing authority for deciding the issue afresh, after allowing the respondents cross- examination of the panch-witnesses and an opportunity of personal hearing to them. He has submitted that in spite of best efforts by the Department, the inves­tigating officers could not locate the panch-witnesses and accordingly, the panch­-witnesses could not be produced before the adjudicating authority in the de novo adjudication proceedings for cross-examination. However, the adjudicating au­thority on the basis of other evidences, confirmed the charges against the re­spondents. He has submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not taking into consideration the other circumstantial evidences into considera­tion, while following the appeals filed by the Respondents before him. The con­tention of the learned AR is that merely due to non-production of panch‑witnesses’, it cannot vitiate the entire proceeding. However, he has fairly con­ceded that in the first round of litigation, it was the specific direction of this Tri­bunal to allow cross-examination of the panch-witnesses and the said order of the Tribunal had not been challenged before the higher authorities nor any time, the Department approached this Tribunal expressing its inability to produce the panch-witnesses for cross-examination.
 
Respondent Contentions:-The respondents submitted that since there was a dispute of the place of seizure, this Tribunal in its first round of litigation, had specifically directed the Department to produce panch-witnesses for cross-examination to ascertain the fact of actual place of seizure of the im­pugned goods. He has submitted that the Revenue has accepted the order of the Tribunal, but later failed to produce the panch-witnesses for cross-examination. He has submitted that consequently, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly observed that non-production of such witnesses resulted injustice to the appellants, and consequently, allowed their appeals.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- We have considered the submission on both sided. It was found that in the initial round of litigation before this Tribunal, after hearing both sides and distinguish­ing the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.), held that the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surjeet Singh Chhabra (cited supra) are different as in that case, the gold jewellery was recovered at the Airport and the only issue raised was whether the same was recovered at the conveyor belt or at the green channel. In the circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court says that the cross examination was not necessary as the recovery is made at the Airport which is a Customs area and the confessional statement was relied upon. In the present case, the appellants are disputing the place of recovery of the silver in question. As per the Revenue, the same is seized at Customs Land Station whereas the appellants' contention is that the same is seized at the Raxaul Bus Station. In the circumstances, the cross examination of the panch witnesses is necessary. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of cross examination of the panch witnesses and an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. Both sides are at liberty to raise their submissions at the time of hearing. Both the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
Under the above circumstances, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for adjudication afresh. However, it seems that the De­partment could not produce the panch-witnesses and the adjudicating authority has confirmed the charges against the respondents on the basis of other circum­stantial evidences available on record. On appeal, the learned Commissioner did not endorse the said action of the Department and set aside the impugned Order of the adjudicating authority passed in de novo adjudication and allowed the ap­peal of the respondents. The learned Commissioner while setting aside the Order, has ob­served as follows :-
 "Therefore, in view of the above fads and circumstances of the case, it is amply clear that the seizing authority has failed to substantiate the legal­ity of the seizure inasmuch as that they failed to produce the Panch Witness as per direction of Hon'ble CESTAT. Without the panch witness the veracity of the seizure and the place of seizure cannot be fully established. Since the department is not able to substantiate the legality of its action the order of confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the failure of the department to produce the panch witness invariably strengthens the case of the appellant and the benefit of doubt is in their favour. Hence the order of the lower adjudicating author­ity needs to be set aside in favour of the appellant."
Tribunal agrees with the above observation of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal has specifically directed the Department to produce the panch-witnesses for cross-examination in order to ascertain the fact of actual place of seizure of the goods. The said Order has been accepted by both sides, but later not implemented by the Department. Therefore, Tribunal do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, the same are dismissed.
 
Decision:- Appeal dismissed.
 
Comment:- The analogy drawn from this case is that when the place of seizure itself cannot be established and department is also not able to provide cross examination of panch-witness, the case tilts in favour of the assessee and the benefit of doubt is to be extended to him.

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com