Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2014 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 626 - HC - CustomsViolation of principle of natural justice - Submission of assessee not considered - Held that - A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Tribunal has held that the appellant is not cooperating as he has not put in appearance nor filed an application for adjournment. It appears that written submissions, filed by the appellant containing a prayer that it did not wish to address arguments in person and the appeal may be decided on the basis of written submissions, was not placed before or brought to the notice of the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, therefore, fell into error in recording that the appellant is not cooperating with the Tribunal. This apart, the pleas raised by the appellant on merits of the controversy have not been considered. The appellant s plea of bona fide purchase without notice of the fraud perpetuated by his vendor has not been considered or decided - Parties are directed to appear before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Allegation of the appellant regarding non-consideration of written arguments by the Tribunal. 2. Appellant's plea for the appeal to be decided based on written submissions without personal presence. 3. Respondent's claim of the appellant being a beneficiary of fraud. 4. Failure of the Tribunal to consider the appellant's written submissions and merits of the case. Analysis: 1. The appellant contended that the Tribunal allowed the appeal by the revenue without considering the written arguments filed a day before the decision. The Court noted that the Tribunal did not take into account the appellant's written submissions, which included a specific plea for the appeal to be decided based on the written arguments without personal presence. The Tribunal's failure to consider these submissions led to an erroneous conclusion that the appellant was not cooperating, resulting in the Court allowing the appeal and remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh adjudication. 2. The appellant had previously filed written arguments requesting the appeal to be decided based on the written submissions without the need for personal appearance. However, the Tribunal did not consider these submissions and instead concluded that the appellant was not cooperating. The Court found that the appellant's plea of bona fide purchase without notice of the fraud by the vendor was not addressed by the Tribunal, leading to the decision to set aside the order and remit the matter for a fresh adjudication by the Tribunal. 3. The respondent argued that the appellant was a beneficiary of fraud and had no case on merits, suggesting that remitting the matter back to the Tribunal would serve no useful purpose. However, the Court found that the Tribunal had erred in not considering the appellant's written submissions and the merits of the case, specifically the appellant's plea regarding the bona fide purchase without notice of fraud. As a result, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the parties to appear before the Tribunal for a fresh adjudication within a specified timeline. 4. The Court's analysis revealed that the Tribunal failed to consider the appellant's written submissions and the merits of the case, leading to an erroneous conclusion that the appellant was not cooperating. The appellant's plea regarding the bona fide purchase without notice of fraud was not addressed by the Tribunal, necessitating the Court to set aside the order and remit the matter for a fresh adjudication in accordance with the law. The decision highlighted the importance of considering all relevant submissions and pleas before reaching a conclusion in appellate matters.
|