TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 924X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no provision under law. Accordingly, we reject the said argument - this entire adjudication and consequent demand notice are absurd and in breech of principles of natural justice. - More so, they are noncompliant with the mandatory provision of the aforesaid Section. Matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue with an independent mind - Decided in favor of assessee. - Writ Petition No. 4438 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 6-6-2014 - CJ Sri Kalyan Jyoti SenguptaAnd Sri Sanjay Kumar,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sri T. V. L. Narasimha Rao For the Respondent : Sri V. Gopala Krishna Ghokle ORDER (Per the Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This writ petition has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the post decisional hearing is not adherence to the requirement of the said Section. Learned counsel for the respondent countering above contention says that if Section 28 of the Customs Act is read, it would appear that the dispute in this matter is not covered thereunder. Thus, it is legally permissible for the respondent to issue demand notice straight way. In any event, post decisional hearing has been given to the petitioner. Hence, there cannot be any grievance with regard to the alleged violation of principles of natural justice. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi vs. C.T. Scan Research Centre (P) Ltd. 2003 (155) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) on the point that issuance of show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ately liability to pay duty may rest on petitioner if its contention is rejected. Naturally, show cause notice is a must before adjudication of the quantity of the duty sought to be levied followed by demand. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28 is a mandatory in character and it is well settled that in the regime of interpretation of statute the mandate of fiscal law has to be strictly construed. Accordingly, this has to be complied with. The Supreme Court in the case of Metal Forgings vs. Union of India 2002 (146) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.), which was cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in paragraph 10 has stated what we say to interpret above as follows: It is an admitted fact that a show cause notice as required in law ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction for such demand. The said notice also will have to be served on the assessee within the said period which is either 6 months or 5 years as the facts demand. Therefore, it will be futile to contend that each and every communication or order could be construed as a show cause notice. For this reason the above argument of the Revenue must fail. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondent in our view has no manner of application, as this judgment nowhere laid down the law that in a case of this nature no show cause notice is required. The Supreme Court in that case has noted on fact that show cause notice was issued before making any demand. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment is quite distinguishable. Learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
