2020 (3) TMI 1013 - HC - Customs

Imposition of penalty u/s 144(iii) and Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 - grievance on the part of the petitioner is that no readjudication has taken place and after 8 years of such order by CESTAT, the Commissioner of Customs, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad has issued letter and once again has issued show cause notice for readjudication of the matter, which was scheduled to be heard on 18.02.2020 - HELD THAT - Noticing the fact that these petitions are preferred against the show cause notice relying on the ratio rendered in case of SIDDHI VINAYAK SYNTEX PVT LTD. VERSUS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2 2017 (3) TMI 1534 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , petitioner may always place the very authority into service before the concerned authority. The petitioner has directly approached this Court against the show cause notice raising all contentions in these petitions. When efficacious remedy in alternative is available, this Court had not enter into the merits of the matters. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Allegation of diverting high-quality polyester fabric procured from 100% EOU for domestic market.
3. Show cause notice confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Daman.
4. CESTAT quashing the order and remanding the matter for reconsideration.
5. Delay in readjudication leading to issuance of a fresh show cause notice after 8 years.
6. Petitioner's reliance on previous court decisions.
7. Court's decision on the petitions against the show cause notice.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a challenge to the penalty imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 based on allegations of procuring high-quality polyester fabric from 100% EOU and diverting it for the domestic market instead of exporting as required.

2. The show cause notice was confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Daman, leading to the penalty under Section 114(iii) and Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Subsequently, the matter was taken to CESTAT, which quashed the order and remanded it for reconsideration following principles of natural justice.

3. The petitioner raised concerns regarding the delay in readjudication, as after 8 years of the CESTAT order, the Commissioner of Customs issued a fresh show cause notice for reconsideration. This delay prompted the petitioner to approach the court seeking resolution.

4. The petitioner's counsel relied on previous court decisions in similar cases, citing Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Kansal Texo Tube Pct. Ltd. vs. Union of India to support their arguments against the show cause notice.

5. The court, without delving into the merits of the case, directed the petitioner to utilize available remedies before the concerned authority, emphasizing the need for exhausting alternative legal options before approaching the court directly. The court highlighted the importance of allowing the concerned authority to decide the matter in accordance with the law.

6. Ultimately, the court disposed of both petitions, indicating that the petitioner should present their case before the appropriate authority using legal precedents cited, and allowing the authority to make a decision without interference from the court's disposal of the petitions.