2017 (7) TMI 552 - HC - Customs

Natural justice - it is the case of the petitioner that while the order was passed ex parte, after noting that despite the grant of several opportunities to the petitioner, the petitioner was not represented at the hearing before the Commissioner - Held that - by Ext.P4 letter of adjournment, the petitioner had indicated that he would not be in a position to be represented in the personal hearing on 22.02.2017, and an opportunity was sought for a personal hearing in the month of March 2017. Ext.P5 order passed by the respondent is without reference to the said request for adjournment made by the petitioner. At any rate, no prejudice will be caused, if a fresh order of adjudication is passed after hearing the petitioner, considering that there is no period of limitation that will be breached, if a fresh order is passed after hearing the petitioner - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to Ext.P5 order confirming demand of service tax and penalty
- Allegation of non-compliance with rules of natural justice
- Request for adjournment and personal hearing not considered
- Request for cross-examination of persons not favorably considered

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the Ext.P5 order confirming a demand of service tax and penalty, alleging non-compliance with the rules of natural justice. The petitioner contended that despite requesting an adjournment and a personal hearing in March 2017, the order was passed ex parte without considering the adjournment request. The petitioner also raised concerns about the denial of the request for cross-examination of individuals whose statements were used against him.

Upon hearing both parties, the court noted that the petitioner had indeed requested an adjournment in the Ext.P4 letter, indicating inability to attend the hearing on 22.02.2017 and seeking a personal hearing in March 2017. The court found that the Ext.P5 order did not reference this adjournment request, leading to a lack of consideration of the petitioner's submissions. The court opined that issuing a fresh order after hearing the petitioner would not cause prejudice, as there was no limitation period at risk. Consequently, the court quashed the Ext.P5 order and directed the respondent to pass fresh orders after affording the petitioner a chance to be heard and to cross-examine relevant individuals.

To facilitate the process, the petitioner was instructed to appear before the respondent on a specified date. The respondent was mandated to issue fresh orders within four months from the specified date, considering the petitioner's objections and allowing for the cross-examination of individuals whose statements were used against the petitioner. This ruling aimed to uphold the principles of natural justice and ensure a fair adjudication process for the petitioner.