9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against penalties imposed under Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act - Non-service of show cause notices - Lack of opportunity for personal hearing - Joint imposition of penalty on two persons - Violation of rules of natural justice. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bombay involved appeals challenging penalties imposed under the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act. The appellants contested the penalties on the grounds of non-service of show cause notices and lack of opportunity for personal hearing. The appellants argued that the show cause notices were not served, and they were not given a chance for a personal hearing, rendering the Collector's order ex parte. Additionally, it was contended that the Collector failed to specify whether the penalties on the appellants were joint or several. The appellants further highlighted that the show cause notices were dated 30-3-1988 but were not served and were returned as "not known." The appellants were detained under COFEPOSA, and despite the detention order being quashed, they were not given proper notice of the hearing. The Collector's order was deemed illegal as the appellants were not provided with copies of the documents relied upon by the department, essential for a fair hearing. The Collector, represented by Shri Mondal, did not dispute the facts but argued that the appellants had ample opportunity to contest the matter, as the hearing notices were dated before their release from detention. However, the Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 124 of the Customs Act, requiring proper notice and opportunity for representation before imposing penalties. The Tribunal criticized the Collector for not complying with legal requirements, such as publishing notices on the Customs House Notice Board and sending notices to the correct address. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants, citing a violation of natural justice and irregularity in jointly imposing penalties. The matter was remanded to the Collector for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide copies of all relied-upon documents to the appellants, grant them a reasonable time for a reply, and ensure a fair personal hearing before passing new orders in accordance with the law. As a result, the appeals were disposed of, rendering the stay applications moot.
|
