2015 (10) TMI 1284 - HC - Customs

Demand for differential customs duty under Section 28 Settlement Commission - Dismissal of application in absence of Petitioner causes serious prejudice to the Petitioner Revenue found adjournments made to be flimsy and without any reasonable cause No documents filed even after three weeks; the order is just fair and proper. Held That - Since amount of differential duty is large final opportunity granted before settling of application with final order and direction Petition allowed with a conditional order If Petitioner remains present in office of competent officer he would get an opportunity to appear before the Commission; same shall then proceed in accordance with law Appeal disposed conditionally in favour of Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1) Challenge to the order passed by the Settlement Commission dated 11th November, 2014.
2) Dismissal of the application in the absence of the Petitioner causing prejudice.
3) Justification of the order by the Revenue regarding multiple adjournments sought.
4) Examination of the impugned order and determination of the Commission's justification in proceeding in the absence of the Petitioner.
5) Consideration of the amount of differential duty demanded and the need for the Petitioner to obtain all relevant records.
6) Conditional order allowing the Petition, setting aside the impugned order, and directing the Revenue to provide necessary documents to the Petitioner.

Analysis:
1) The Writ Petition challenges the order of the Settlement Commission dated 11th November, 2014, which was based on an application for settlement under section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, seeking resolution of a dispute arising from a show cause notice demanding differential Customs Duty. The application was registered as SA(C) 08/2014.
2) The Petitioner argued that the dismissal of the application in their absence, despite reasonable requests for documents, breached principles of natural justice and caused prejudice. The intent was not to delay proceedings indefinitely, but to ensure a fair opportunity to present their case.
3) The Revenue justified the order, citing multiple adjournments sought by the Petitioner on insufficient grounds. The Commission proceeded to deal with the application on merits after observing a lack of document submission despite adjournments.
4) The Court examined the impugned order and agreed with the Commission's decision to proceed in the absence of the Petitioner due to repeated adjournments without justifiable cause. However, considering the substantial amount of differential duty involved, the Court emphasized the need for the Petitioner to have access to all relevant records for a fair hearing.
5) A conditional order was issued, setting aside the impugned order and directing the Revenue to provide the necessary documents to the Petitioner by a specified date. The Petitioner was required to comply with this condition and pay costs within a designated timeframe to revive the proceedings before the Commission, with a warning against seeking unnecessary adjournments or facing dismissal of the application for non-compliance.