ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical)
1. These appeals are against two orders of the Collector of Customs, Vadodara.
2. One of the arguments raised before us was that, insofar as the appellants other than appellants N. Shivprasadan, Rajesh R Gandhi and Gandhi Texturising Industries (appeals E/435, 433, 438, 437 & 436/91) are concerned, the orders are in contravention of the principles of natural justice. It was contended that after the Additional Collector of Customs, Vadodara, heard the parties, he was promoted and transferred. The matter thereafter came up for adjudication before the Collector. The Collector, it is contended, did not hear these persons.
3. In his order, the Collector records the fact of transfer of the Additional Collector and the adjudication by him. He mentions the presence of Mr K.S. Nanavati, advocate and his two juniors Mr G.G. Parekh and Mr D.B. Bhutty. He also mentions the presence of Rajesh Gandhi and N.B. Bhatt, who is not the appellant before us. His order is silent as to the hearing offered to other persons. Therefore, on the request made by the counsels for the appellant at the hearing on 20.2.001, we adjourned the matter, asking the departmental representative to produce the relevant case records. The matter was adjourned to 18.4.2001, and again at the request of the departmental representative to 11.6.2001 and finally to 18.6.2001. Today the departmental representative tells us that he has received a fax message Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat (who now has territorial jurisdiction) saying that the Commissioner of Customs, Vadodara has informed him that the file could not be traced. There is no indication as to what steps were taken to find the records and when they are expected to be found.
4. That being the case, we have no alternative but to conclude that the submissions made before us by the counsel for the appellant are correct. They have gone unanswered by the Commissioner despite sufficient opportunity having been given. This leaves us with the appeals of three peons whose claim we have mentioned. The order proceeds on the footing that there was a conspiracy by various persons, including these three, to clear goods without payment of duty from the bonded warehouse where they were deposited by producing a forged import licence and other forged documents. Having regard to the nature of the charge and the evidence involved, we think that it would be inappropriate to have only the matters of the persons other than these three to be heard and decided.
5. We therefore, set aside both the impugned orders and allow the appeals The Commissioner shall, after giving the appellant before us a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass orders on the matters in accordance with law.