Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 839 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported computer products and parts - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- In this case unlike normal quasi judicial proceedings where Revenue is not represented, the Revenue was also represented. Quite often we also take notes during the hearing and pass orders based on our notings thereafter and our notes are not made available to the parties. Some times we may ask for written submissions and sometimes not. In this case the Commissioner has gone out of the way to provide soft copies of records of personal hearing so that parties do not have any grievance. In this case he has gone an extra mile and has not only prepared detailed records of personal hearing but has also made them available in the form of soft copies. That being the position if the Commissioner has taken into account the submissions made during the personal hearings and if that is shown it should be sufficient. Principles of natural justice have not been observed without considering the facts and circumstances in detail we will be virtually reviewing our own order which is contrary to law. We have to take note of the fact that at the time of hearing the stay application also, the matter had been heard in great detail in view of the large amount of Revenue involved. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for us to sit in judgment over the conclusion reached by the Tribunal at the time of hearing the stay application that in this case there is no need to remand the matter to the Commissioner for non-observance of principles of natural justice. In fact in cases like this which take a lot of time for hearing, it may always be appropriate to remand the matter at the time when stay application is heard so that the time spent for conducting the final hearing and stay application can be preserved for hearing other matters especially in view of the fact that Bangalore Bench has been consistently having very high pendency throughout a period of 3 or 4 years in the past. When this tribunal did not do so at the time of hearing the stay application and chose to consider the case on merits, it would not be appropriate to take a contrary view now. - Decided in favour of appellant.
|