TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that differential duty will have to be paid by them if it is held that the Notification No. 114/80-(Cus.) is not applicable. The petitioners submitted a representation in which inter alia they stated that when just like the petitioners, several other persons had imported identical machineries from abroad and when all these imports were given the benefit of the Notification No. 114/80(Cus.) and those cases were not reopened, there is absolutely no justification for singling out the petitioners for hostile treatment. In their letter dated 15-11-1988, the petitioners requested the respondent who issued the show cause notice to summon the relevant file from the concerned assessing officers who cleared similar machineries imported by others b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation filed by them on 15-11-1988 before proceeding further in the matter. They concluded that letter by stating as follows: "The respondents submit that unless the Collector disposes of the application under Section 108 one way or the other we will be constrained to move the Hon'ble High Court by way of appropriate proceedings. At a time convenient to you we would like a hearing on the submissions made in this letter. Kindly give us a date for the same before taking any proceedings." Obviously, the petitioners wanted to convince the respondent that their application filed on 15-11-1988 merits favourable disposal and it is for that purpose they prayed for a hearing to be given before the respondent could proceed further with the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them which the petitioners state, is not fair. 2. In answer to the above submission, Mr. P. Narasimhan, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel would submit that the letter for adjournment dated 10-2-1989 purported to have been sent along with the representation dated 15-2-1989 was not in fact received in the office of the Collector. He would submit that the only representation received from the petitioners was dated 15-2-1989 in which the petitioners have taken a stand that orders should be made to their earlier representation dated 15-11-1988 and under law, the respondent is not bound to dispose of the earlier representation by independent proceedings and therefore the adjudication orders passed on 21-2-1989 without further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be disposed of on merits. They had also requested the hearing on the maintainability of the application. But the respondent has not chosen to send any reply. Even otherwise that the letter dated 10-2-1989 sent by the authorised representatives of the petitioner had not been received by the respondent, yet, even on the representation dated 15-2-1989, the petitioners should have been at least informed that their request would not be complied with and the hearing would go on 24-2-1989 and if the petitioners chose to remain absent on that date, it would be at their peril. The respondent has not taken that course and has not acted in conformity with the principle of natural justice while he passed orders adverse to the petitioners on 24-2-198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
