2015 (10) TMI 269 - AT - Customs

Initiation of Second proceedings on same cause It was alleged that there was violation of Advance license Tribunal held that appellant failed to comply pre-deposit direction Meanwhile adjudicating authority initiated second proceeding on same grounds Held that - It is established fact that self-same licence has been dealt by two adjudication orders as above in respect of self-same cause, which is not permissible in law Tax was not being multiple taxation law, impugned order passed against appellant is unsustainable Accordingly order set aside Decided in favour of Assesse.

Summary

Issues: Alleged violation of conditions of Advance Licences; Repetitive litigation; Compliance with pre-deposit directions; Unsustainability of impugned order.

Analysis:

1. Alleged violation of conditions of Advance Licences:
The case involved 13 Advance Licences issued to the appellant for the importation of Stainless Steel Coils. The dispute arose regarding the last licence, leading to two instances of allegations of violation of conditions. The first instance was adjudicated on 20.04.2005, followed by an appeal to the Tribunal. However, the appellant failed to comply with the pre-deposit direction issued by the Tribunal, leading to further legal actions. The High Court reduced the quantum of deposit but the appellant still failed to comply, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal in 2007.

2. Repetitive litigation:
Subsequently, a second proceeding was initiated by the Adjudicating authority alleging a violation of the conditions of the same Advance Licence that was subject to the previous adjudication. The appellant argued against repetitive litigation, highlighting that all the licences in question were previously addressed in the 2005 Adjudication Order. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's contention, stating that dealing with the same licence for the same cause in two separate adjudication orders was impermissible in law. Consequently, the present adjudication was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

3. Compliance with pre-deposit directions:
The case also involved non-compliance with pre-deposit directions issued by the Tribunal and subsequent failure to adhere to the High Court's orders regarding the deposit amount. The appellant's failure to comply with these directions led to the dismissal of the appeal in 2007. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with legal directives to ensure the proper adjudication of appeals.

4. Unsustainability of impugned order:
Based on the facts presented and the legal arguments made, the Tribunal found that the impugned order against the appellant was unsustainable. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and all related appeals stemming from the same cause, as the primary issue of violation of conditions of the Advance Licences had already been addressed in the previous adjudication. The Tribunal disposed of all appeals accordingly, considering the outcome of the main appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed various legal aspects, including compliance with legal directives, repetitive litigation, and the sustainability of the impugned order, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the present adjudication and the disposal of related appeals.