2015 (11) TMI 688 - HC - Customs

Valuation - Enhancement in value - order passed without issuance of notice - Held that - When the direction given by the learned Tribunal to the assessing authority is very clear, as pleaded by Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned standing counsel, the petitioner was given all reasonable opportunity. But that does not mean that when the original authority in the earlier order has adjudicated the issue with regard to the provisional assessment with EDD equivalent to 15.122% of Assessable Value, cannot on their own by rejecting the value declared by the petitioner, order for re-determination of the value by loading the same by 19.70% without there being any specific further notice for enhancement of the value. Therefore, this Court being convinced with the submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is inclined to interfere with and accordingly by setting aside the impugned order, the matter is again remanded back to the assessing officer and the petitioner is directed to treat the order as notice and submit his case by appearing personally before the assessing authority. It is needless to mention that the assessing officer is directed to issue notice informing the date of hearing and thereafter to decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law. It is open to the petitioner to rely upon any documents at the time of hearing. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging an order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs without prior notice and following remand directions from the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The Writ Petition was filed by M/s.Carlisle Trading & Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd., challenging the order dated 10.03.2015 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without issuing any notice regarding the proposal to enhance the value, contrary to the remand directions from the Tribunal. The petitioner's counsel argued that the respondent exceeded the Tribunal's directions by re-determining the value and adding a loading of 19.70% without proper notice. The counsel emphasized that the notice for enhancement should have been given to the petitioner. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that there was no provision requiring notice and that the petitioner had the opportunity for a personal hearing before the respondent. The respondent justified the order and suggested that the petitioner could appeal if aggrieved.

The Court found no merit in the respondent's contentions. Referring to the previous order dated 03.06.2013, the Court noted that the Tribunal had remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority with clear directions to provide a proper opportunity for hearing before making a decision. The Court emphasized that the respondent, by rejecting the declared value and ordering a re-determination with a higher loading percentage, acted beyond the Tribunal's directions without issuing specific notice for enhancement. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the assessing officer, directing the petitioner to treat the order as notice and present their case. The assessing officer was instructed to issue a notice for a hearing, allowing the petitioner to submit any relevant documents during the hearing.

In conclusion, the Writ Petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.