9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
- Challenge to the order of the respondents dated 25-10-1998 based on violation of principles of natural justice. - Contention regarding the demand of additional duty without proper adjudication. - Whether the impugned order demanding additional duty is legally sustainable. Analysis: 1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The petitioner challenged the order of the respondents dated 25-10-1998, alleging a violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that after the dismissal of the earlier writ petitions, no opportunity was given to him to present his objections, and the date of hearing was not intimated, which he claimed was against the principles of natural justice. The respondents, represented by the Addl. Solicitor General, contended that the petitioner was given opportunities for personal hearings, and specific dates were fixed for the same. It was argued that the petitioner should have approached the respondents after the dismissal of the writ petitions to present his objections, which he failed to do. The Addl. Solicitor General relied on the principle of prejudice as established in the case law of Aligarh Muslim University and Others v. Mansoor Alikhan to support the argument that the petitioner needed to demonstrate the prejudice caused by the lack of opportunity to explain his case. The court considered these arguments and emphasized the importance of showing actual prejudice caused by the lack of notice for a violation of natural justice to be established. 2. Demand of Additional Duty Without Proper Adjudication: The petitioner's counsel, Senior Counsel Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, raised a crucial point regarding the demand of additional duty without proper adjudication. It was argued that the impugned order demanding additional duty was solely based on the duty demand register maintained by the Customs Department, without any formal order of adjudication. Mr. Krishnamoorthy contended that without a proper adjudication, the demand for additional duty could not be legally enforced. The court analyzed the impugned order, which directed the petitioner to pay duty arrears without mentioning any adjudication confirming the liability. The court agreed with the petitioner's argument, emphasizing the necessity of an adjudication before demanding additional duty. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the impugned order due to the absence of a formal adjudication supporting the duty demand. 3. Legality of the Impugned Order: The court's decision to quash the impugned order was based on the absence of any adjudication supporting the demand for additional duty. The impugned order was found to lack a legal basis for demanding payment from the petitioner, as it solely relied on the duty demand register without proper adjudication. The court highlighted the importance of following due process and issuing orders based on valid adjudications to ensure the legality and enforceability of duty demands. As a result of the absence of such formal adjudication, the court allowed the writ petition and directed both parties to settle the matter within a month, with a specified date for the petitioner to present objections before the respondents. Failure to do so would result in orders being passed based on merits without further notice. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of violation of natural justice, lack of adjudication in demanding additional duty, and the legality of the impugned order. The court emphasized the importance of following due process, including providing opportunities for hearings and issuing orders based on proper adjudications, to ensure the fairness and legality of duty demands in customs matters.
|
