9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 262 - AT - CustomsConversion of shipping bills - 3 duty free shipping bills into duty draw back shipping bills - relaxation of 12(1)(a)(i) read with Circular No 04/2004-CU dt 16th Jan. 2004 - principles of natural justice - Held that - We find force in the submission of appellant in as much as while rejecting their request for conversion of 3 duty-free shipping bill into duty draw back shipping bills, the Ld Commissioner has not afforded them an opportunity of hearing and explain their case with evidence. Needless to mention such action has resulted in gross violation of principles of natural justice. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Ld Commissioner for deciding the issue afresh after allowing an opportunity to the appellant to explain their case in person - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
Appeal against rejection of request for relaxation of customs rules without opportunity to explain case and violation of natural justice principles. Analysis: The case involves an appeal against the rejection of a request for relaxation of provisions of Rule 12(1)(a) of the Customs and Central Excise Duty Draw Back Rules, 1995. The appellant had requested the conversion of duty-free shipping bills into duty draw back shipping bills, citing Circular No 04/2004-CU. The Commissioner rejected the request without providing an opportunity for the appellant to explain their case, leading to an alleged violation of natural justice principles. The appellant claimed to have sufficient evidence to support their entitlement to duty draw back. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's submission, noting that the Commissioner's decision lacked a hearing and explanation process, resulting in a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision after allowing the appellant an opportunity to present their case in person. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and the right to be heard in such matters.
|
