2019 (9) TMI 183 - HC - Customs

Demand of Interest - finalization of provisional assessment - petitioner had raised several objections substantiating that they were not liable to pay the demand amount, which were not considered - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The demand notice dated 12.12.2012 is a single line demand, made without consideration of any of the objections raised by the petitioner. As a matter of fact, such demand in the year 2012, has been made on the action which came to be initiated way back in 1998. Originally, when the petitioner was summoned to participate in the enquiry in connection with levy of interest, on 23.11.2007, the petitioner had given various objections which was kept in abeyance unreasonably for more than five years - the second respondent seems to have reopened the issue on 09.01.2012, calling upon the petitioner to participate in the personal hearing. It is the consequence of those proceedings that the petitioner had appeared and given its written submissions on 24.02.2012. The petitioner is not entitled to pay the interest in the impugned demand. This Court is of the view that since the impugned demand is being set aside only on the ground of non-consideration of the objections, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the respondents for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenging a communication dated 12.12.2012 seeking to set aside a demand notice for Customs duty exemption certificate, non-payment of duty, and interest amount.

Analysis:
1. Non-consideration of objections by the second respondent: The petitioner challenged the demand notice dated 12.12.2012 on the grounds of non-consideration of their objections, which they raised during the personal hearing. The petitioner contended that the failure to address their objections amounted to a violation of natural justice. The court noted that the demand was based on actions initiated in 1998, and objections raised in 2007 were unreasonably kept pending for more than five years. The court criticized the non-speaking order and lack of application of mind in the impugned notice, emphasizing the importance of addressing objections raised before statutory authorities.

2. Violation of principles of natural justice: The court observed that when objections of such nature are raised before authorities, they must be duly considered. The failure to consider these objections not only violates natural justice but also indicates a lack of application of mind. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to succeed solely on this ground.

3. Remand for fresh consideration: While setting aside the demand notice, the court decided to remand the matter back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The court directed the first respondent to consider all objections raised by the petitioner, including any additional objections to be filed within fifteen days. The first respondent was instructed to pass appropriate orders based on the merits and in accordance with the law, ensuring a fair opportunity for a personal hearing to the petitioner.

In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of addressing objections raised by the petitioner and ensuring a fair and expeditious process.