2017 (7) TMI 1167 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - case of appellant is that since the order impugned was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice the appellant is entitled to maintain a writ petition by-passing the statutory alternative remedy - Held that - Although admittedly the Statute contains conditions for maintaining an appeal before the Tribunal in the writ petition there was no challenge against such statutory prescriptions. In the absence of any such challenge the appellant cannot set up any plea with respect to the onerous nature of the statutory preconditions to maintain an appeal and is bound to comply with those conditions. In such circumstances this Court also cannot relax such statutory prescriptions. Principles of natural justice - Held that - It is true that violation of principles of natural justice is a ground entitling a litigant to invoke the extraordinary constitutional remedy before this Court. However a reading of the impugned order shows that this plea has also been specifically dealt with by the adjudicating authority and on facts the authority has come to a conclusion that the appellant was afforded all reasonable opportunities to explain his case and that principles of natural justice has been complied with - In such a case only on a factual adjudication of the contentions of the appellant a decision on his plea of violation of principles of natural justice can be taken. Appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.18975 of 2017.
2. Challenge of enormous penalty preventing compliance with conditions for appeal.
3. Allegation of violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the High Court stemmed from the judgment of the Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.18975 of 2017, where the appellant's request to set aside Ext.P3 order was denied. The Single Judge directed the appellant to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, granting an additional two weeks for the same.

2. The appellant argued that the substantial penalty imposed hindered compliance with the appeal conditions. However, the High Court noted that the appellant did not challenge the statutory appeal conditions in the writ petition. Consequently, the appellant was obligated to adhere to the statutory requirements for maintaining an appeal, and the Court could not waive these conditions.

3. Regarding the allegation of a violation of natural justice principles, the High Court acknowledged that such a violation could warrant constitutional intervention. Nevertheless, the impugned order demonstrated that the adjudicating authority had addressed this issue and concluded that the appellant had been given ample opportunities to present his case fairly. The Court emphasized that factual determinations on this matter should be made by the appellate forum. Therefore, the High Court found no merit in the appellant's contentions and dismissed the appeal.

4. Despite dismissing the appeal, the High Court recognized the pending writ petition and the two weeks' time granted by the Single Judge to file an appeal before the Tribunal. The Court directed that if the appellant filed an appeal within two weeks of receiving the judgment copy, following the necessary procedural requirements, the Tribunal should consider and decide the appeal on its merits after a hearing.