TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 759X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sdiction to the utter dis-regard to law. Therefore, that is set aside. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority with the directions to complete the re-adjudication afresh by March, 2017 - appeal allowed by way of remand. - C/528/2005 - FINAL ORDER NO, 41867/2016 - Dated:- 29-9-2016 - Shri D.N.Panda, Judicial Member and Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Technical Member Shri R. Raghavan, Advocate For the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER The matter was heard at length on 23.09.2016. Challenge of the appellant was that Revenue has gone on making repeated litigation on the self-same cause following different tactics at different points of time as per the date and event chart submitted on 23/09/2016. The chart reads as under:- 16.05.1984 Bill of Entry 813/16.5.84 filed classifying imported goods under CH 84.35 Bill of Entry assessed under CH 84.35/9.1.68 and duty of ₹ 80,59,513/- paid (40% + 25% + CVD 10%) 29.05.1984 Unsigned SCN issued on 29.5.84 seeking to assess the imported goods under CH 85.13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsist on the pre-deposit of duty when the appeal is being remanded back for re-consideration of the issue by the lower authority . 6.8.1985 Fresh SCN dt. 6.8.85 (without reference to previous SCN/OIO/OIA) giving reasons for reassessment of B/E 813/16.5.1984. 25.7.1984 to 21.1.1998 In the meantime, public notice 217/84 dated 25.7.84 was issued classifying the impugned goods under CH 85.13/85.15. This was challenged in WP No. 8921/85. Simultaneously WP No. 8922/85 was filed seeking stay of the SCN dt. 6.6.85 proceedings pending the WP 8921/85. Though stay as prayed for was granted, the writ was dismissed on 21.1.98 requiring the appellant to participate in SCN dt. 6.8.85 proceedings. The findings are as follows: 13. So, from the above show cause notice issued under Section 28 of the said Act, it is made clear that the petitioners have been asked to make any representation in writing along with the evidence, if any, as to why the goods should not be assessed under item 85.15 CTA read with 68 CET. It further says that in case the petitioners wish to be heard in person before the case is deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. The petitioners can enlighten and out forth their contentions before the third respondent. Hence, I am not inclined to grant the relief prayed for in this writ petition also. 16. For the reasons sated above, I see no merit in these writ petitions and accordingly they are dismissed. 25.10.1998 to 10.08.2004 When the appellants were expecting PH notice they were served with demand for ₹ 38,07,255/- in OIO dt. 25.10.1998. This order was challenged in WP No. 26980/98 for violation of principles of natural justice. Interim stay was granted. On 10.08.2004, the Hon ble High Court allowed the Writ petition with the following observation: From this it is seen that basis for this letter is only that there is a demand in the register maintained by the Custom House. There is no mention about the date on which the adjudication that the petitioner is liable to pay the additional duty of ₹ 38,07,255/- (specified in the impugned order) was made. In the absence of any such adjudication, such a demand cannot be made. Therefore, inasmuch as the impugned order does not show that it is based upon any of the adjudication, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en they had placed all the documents, catalogues, etc. right from the time of import and had made several submissions and further replies at every stage disputing the creditability of the demand itself. In these circumstances, I observe that order of lower authority is bad in law and offends the principles of natural justice and therefore I am left with no option but to set aside the order and remand the case back to the lower authority for denovo examination of the issues raised by the appellant and to grant an opportunity to them to place their point of view. I also direct that while re-examining the goods, the lower authority to make available the evidence if any in the Department s possession to the appellant before deciding the matter [emphasis supplied]. 4. Without re-adjudicating the matter, in accordance with the direction of the appellate authority made as above by order dated 13.6.1985, a fresh show cause notice memo was issued by the adjudicating authority on 6.8.1985 . Against that SCN, appellant went to the Hon ble High Court of Madras challenging the validity of the said show cause notice memo in W.P.No. 8921/1985 . Hon ble High Court by order dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l emerging out of adjudication made on the basis of SCN dt. 6.8.85 as is apparent from the factual matrix set out herein before. 9. On perusal of the adjudication order dated 01.10.2004 it became clear that the adjudicating authority had no regard to the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) passed on 13.06.1985 with the following observation and direction as under:- From the various points raised regarding the Lower Authority s order, I observe that it does suffer from several infirmities. In fact, as the appellant had pointed out even the show cause notice itself is not on a firm ground and does not spell out the grounds a also the reasons for demand or differential duty thus affording the appellants to effectively defend themselves. The lower authority had decided the case in an arbitrary way without meeting the several legal and technical issues raised by the appellants especially when they had placed all the documents, catalogues, etc. right from the time of import and had made several submissions and further replies at every stage disputing the creditability of the demand itself. In these circumstances, I observe that order of lower authority is bad in law an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
