2019 (1) TMI 923 - HC - Customs

Validity of order in original - the competent concerned authority at Nhava Sheva, Raigad, Maharashtra has already rendered a decision on 30.6.2014 and hence the entire exercise undertaken by the respondent No.3 for issuing the order dated 29.03.2018 was unfortunate, unwarranted and deserves to be quashed and set aside - the concerned authority did record the new address of the petitioner - Held that - This is a fit case in which if the court is not called upon to exercise its discretion then not only would cause prejudice to the petitioner but would unnecessarily encroached upon the time of the tribunal. The court would have rather considered for awarding appropriate cost also had there been some intimation to the authority deciding subsequent proceedings. In the instant case, as there was no intimation to the subsequent authority, we are not inclined to award any cost but we will surely would like to record that appropriate communication and inter-departmental exchanges would have avoided - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to an order-in-original dated 29.03.2018 on the grounds of competence and necessity of the authority's actions.

Analysis:
The petitioners approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus or prohibition to quash the impugned order dated 29.03.2018 and its corrigendum. The challenge was based on the argument that the competent authority had already rendered a decision on 30.6.2014, making the subsequent exercise by the respondent unwarranted. The petitioners sought relief to prevent the enforcement of the impugned order and requested interim relief as well. The Court noted that the petitioner had received a show-cause notice in 2008, which was adjudicated upon by the Commissioner of Customs in 2014. The order-in-original resulting from this adjudication was under appeal at the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. However, during the pendency of the appeal, a new notification in 2016 led to a fresh adjudication by a different authority. This new adjudication, culminating in the order dated 29.03.2018, was challenged in the present proceedings.

The Court considered the arguments presented by both parties. The petitioner's counsel contended that the corrigendum issued in June 2018 indicated that the new address of the petitioner had been recorded by the authority, making the subsequent order unnecessary. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner should have availed the statutory appeal process and that the Court should not interfere. However, the Court found that the new adjudication was unjustified, as the final figures remained unchanged even after the corrigendum. The Court opined that failure to exercise its discretion would prejudice the petitioner and unnecessarily burden the tribunal. While no costs were awarded due to lack of intimation to the subsequent authority, the Court emphasized the importance of communication to avoid such situations in the future. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order dated 29.03.2018, and clarified that it would not impact the ongoing appeal proceedings before the tribunal arising from the 2014 order. The Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.