2014 (10) TMI 715 - AT - Customs

Denial of the extension of the warehousing period - Whether the appellant was given reasonable opportunity of personal hearing before passing the impugned order and whether the principles of natural justice is complied - Held that - impugned order has been passed by the adjudicating authority without giving any proper opportunity of hearing to explain their case in person. It is also seen that the appellant vide letter dated 27.03.2013, had submitted before the Commissioner that they have obtained necessary authorization (Zero Duty EPCG Licence). On perusal of the said authorization No. 2230002152, it was issued on 20.03.2013 by the JDDGFT for import under Zero Duty EPCG Scheme - adjudicating authority had passed the impugned order without giving any proper opportunity of hearing, it is appropriate in the interest of justice to remand the matter to the original authority to decide afresh after considering all the grounds including the notices issued under 72(2) of Customs Act, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the appellants and pass the order as expeditiously as possible within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of extension of warehousing period for imported capital goods.
2. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported capital goods and filed three warehouse Bills of Entry, seeking extension of the warehousing period due to applying for a Zero Duty EPCG license. Customs authorities issued demand notices under the Customs Act, 1962, leading to denial of extension by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant contended that they had a valid Zero Duty EPCG authorization before the notices were issued, citing a relevant court decision.

2. The Ld. Advocate argued that the denial of extension without a personal hearing violated the principles of natural justice. The Ld. AR for the revenue defended the adjudicating authority's decision, stating that a personal hearing was conducted. However, the appellant claimed that the meeting with the authority was not for a hearing but to appraise the matter, highlighting the lack of opportunity to present their case properly.

3. The Tribunal found that the impugned order was passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant, contrary to the principles of natural justice. Noting the Zero Duty EPCG license obtained by the appellant before the impugned order, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the original authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of proper hearing and considering all grounds before passing a new order within eight weeks from the date of the decision.

This judgment underscores the significance of adherence to natural justice principles in administrative decisions and the necessity of providing a fair opportunity for parties to present their case effectively.