TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Tribunal being violative of the principles of natural justice and having been passed at the back of the petitioners without serving any notice upon them and without giving any opportunity of hearing to them is, therefore, liable to be set aside to the extent it relates to the present petitioners. – mater remanded back for de novo proceedings - W.P. (C) Nos. 1676, 1678-1679, 1688 and 1697 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2010 - Judgment Reserved on: 26.04.2010 Judgment Delivered on: 30.04.2010 WP.(C).1676/2010 A K NIJHAWAN V ersus UNION OF INDIA ORS. WP.(C).1678/2010 K K VOHRA V ersus UNION OF INDIA ORS. WP.(C). 1679/2010 K K VOHRA V ersus UNION OF INDIA ORS. WP.(C). 1688/2010 B B GOEL V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... WP.(C).1697/2010, Shri Gurbans Singh, decided not to impose penalty on Shri K.K.Vohra. Vide Order - in - Original No.10/GS/CC/DRI/NCH/06 dated 22.12.2006, which pertains to WP.(C).1679/2010, he decided not to impose penalty on Shri K.K.Vohra. 3. Appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Customs before the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, challenging the orders passed by Commissioner of Central Excise(Adjudication) thereby deciding not to impose penalty upon the petitioners. A perusal of all the copies of appeals filed in WP.(C).1676/2010, WP.(C).1678/2010, WP.(C).1697/2010 WP.(C).1679/2010 would show that the appeals were directed only against the customs officers and the only prayer made in the appeals was seeking orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Form annexed to the appeal. Had the respondents done so, the Tribunal would obviously have issued notice to the petitioners instead of issuing the same to the concerned exporter. As noted earlier, Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Shri Gurbans Singh had passed an order favourable to the petitioners by deciding not to impose any penalty upon them. The order passed by him, to the extent he decided not to impose any penalty on the petitioners, could not have been set aside and the matter could not have been remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for de novo proceedings, without issuing notice to the petitioners and without giving an opportunity of hearing to them. As a result of no notice and no opportunity of hearing having been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
