An order passed without following principles of natural justice is a nullity, and the petitioner has the right to cross-examine the witnesses on whom reliance has been placed by the authorities.

JUDGMENT

M.G.Sewlikar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

2. By this writ petition, the Petitioner is seeking the quashing of the order dated 8th May, 2020 passed by the Respondent no. 2 whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed

3. Facts leading to this petition shorn of details can be stated thus:-

The petitioner is working with Airport Sorting Authority (APSO) as a clearing agent. It is further alleged that a criminal conspiracy was hatched by Naishad Kapadia, Mohmmad Manaswal, Ketan Kothari and others to defraud the Government of India of its legitimate revenue by causing import of Iridium Sponge. Pursuant to the conspiracy, the Iridium Sponge was imported from Singapore by one Mohammadi Manswala in the name of NBK enterprises on a grossly understated value under the cover of invoice raised by M/S Lim fa Pte Ltd or M/S Yuva International Pte Ltd. Based upon the purported intelligence, the officer found a speed post parcel that had arrived at APSO office under consignment note sent by M/S Yuva International Pte Ltd. The said parcel was found to be a cardboard box with a speed post label pasted on it. Based upon this investigation, statements of Naishad B. Kapadia, Yusuf Manaswala, Smt. Tasneem M. Lokhandwala, Shri Karan Kothari, Iqbal Sattur, Balu Kothare and Moiz Mohta came to be recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Statement of the Petitioner was recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Based upon the above investigation, show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner and six others.

4. It is further alleged that except the Petitioner and one Mohammadi Manaswala, all the other noticees approached the Settlement Commissioner for the settlement of the case. Vide the final orders dated 23rd October, 2013, 27th April, 2015 and 24th February , 2014 the Settlement Commissioner passed the order directing to pay the full amount of duty with interest. It is further alleged that vide Order-in-original dated 13th March, 2013, Respondent No. 2 imposed a penalty of Rs 90,05,396/- under Section 112 0f the Customs Act 1962. Against this order, Petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 2948 of 2020. This court vide order dated 30th January, 2020 directed the petitioner to file an affidavit giving complete address for future correspondence and scheduled personal hearing on 24th February 2020. Personal hearing was held on 29th April, 2020. The Petitioner had made a request for the cross examination of Naishad B Kapadia, Yusuf Madraswala, Smt. Tasneem M. Lokhandwala, Shri Karan Kothari, Iqbal Sattur and Balu Kothare Moiz Mohta. This request was turned down by the Respondent No. 2. Thereafter, vide order dated 8th May, 2020, Respondent No.2 imposed penalty of Rs 90,05,396/- on the Petitioner. This order is impugned in this petition.

5. Learned counsel Shri Raichandani submitted that the principles of natural justice have been violated by Respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order in original. He submitted that Respondent No.2 did not furnish opportunity to the Petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. Respondent No.2 observed that cross-examination of witnesses would not shed any further light and on this ground Respondent No.2 did not permit the Petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. It is submitted that if the principles of natural justice are violated the order passed by the Authority is a nullity in the eye of law. For this proposition, Learned counsel Mr.Raichandani placed reliance on the case of M/s. Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II, reported 2015 (324) ELT (641) (S.C.) for this

6. Learned counsel Shri Karan Adik for the respondents submitted that the Respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order after considering the entire material on record. He submitted that the other material on record is sufficient enough to prove the culpability of the Petitioner. He s