TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to participate in the enquiry in connection with levy of interest, on 23.11.2007, the petitioner had given various objections which was kept in abeyance unreasonably for more than five years - the second respondent seems to have reopened the issue on 09.01.2012, calling upon the petitioner to participate in the personal hearing. It is the consequence of those proceedings that the petitioner had appeared and given its written submissions on 24.02.2012. The petitioner is not entitled to pay the interest in the impugned demand. This Court is of the view that since the impugned demand is being set aside only on the ground of non-consideration of the objections, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the respondents for fresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the order in appeal, the IHCL has filed an appeal before the CESTAT. 2.3 While the matter was pending before the CESTAT, the IHCL had merged with the Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited (hereinafter would be referred to as the petitioner ), the petitioner herein, on 18.04.2000. 2.4 At this stage, the petitioner had paid the entire demand amount on 22.06.2007. On the same day, the respondent had called upon the petitioner to pay the interest amount of ₹ 1,06,62,212/-. 2.5 Objecting to such demand of interest, the petitioner had given its reply on 18.09.2007, pursuant to which, the petitioner was extended with an opportunity of personal hearing. Written submissions were made duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount to violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to seek indulgence of this Court to invoke its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that what is under challenge in the present writ petition is only a notice calling upon the petitioner to pay the demand amount and in view of Section 18 (3) of the Customs Act, 1962, the petitioner is liable to pay the interest amount. 6. I have perused the demand notice dated 12.12.2012, which is a single line demand, made without consideration of any of the objections raised by the petitioner. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to pay the interest in the impugned demand. This Court is of the view that since the impugned demand is being set aside only on the ground of non-consideration of the objections, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the respondents for fresh consideration. Since this Court had made observations to the effect that the second respondent had not applied his mind, it would not be appropriate to remand back the matter to the second respondent again and therefore, the first respondent herein is called upon to consider the petitioner's objections, as a special case. 10. With the above observations, the demand notice dated 12.12.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
