9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 194 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of petition - appealable order or not - Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962 - sufficient opportunity of hearing not provided - principles of Natural Justice - HELD THAT - The petition appears to involve highly disputed question of fact regarding the service of the notice of personal hearing to the petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner that no notice of hearing was given whereas it is alleged by the respondents that adequate chances were given to the petitioner to reply to the show cause notice as well as to avail the opportunity of being heard by the respondent-authorities who had passed the Order-in-Original. We are not inclined to pass any order or direction or writ in the present writ petition upon the respondents. The Tribunal is the final fact finding authority. The Appellate Tribunal in this case is CESTAT, under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner is permitted to prefer an appeal under the Customs Act, 1962 against the Order-in-Original dated 30th June, 2020 (Annexure P-7) which is under challenge in this writ petition and raise all the points which are agitated in this writ petition as well as to agitate all the grounds on the merits of the case as well - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to Order-in-Original dated 30th June, 2020 under Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to set aside the Order-in-Original dated 30th June, 2020, issued for an alleged breach of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner requested an opportunity to file a detailed reply and have a fresh hearing. The Order-in-Original was appealable under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The Court noted that an efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioner through appeal. The petitioner argued that the Order-in-Original was passed without a hearing and no notice was served. However, the Court cited precedents emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction. 3. Referring to the Supreme Court case law, the Court highlighted that the High Court should not entertain a writ petition if an alternative effective remedy is available. The petitioner failed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice despite being informed of multiple personal hearing dates. The Court emphasized the importance of following statutory remedies. 4. The judgment highlighted the disputed fact regarding the service of the notice of personal hearing. The petitioner claimed no notice was given, while the respondents asserted providing ample opportunities for a response. Due to the factual dispute, the Court declined to intervene and directed the petitioner to appeal to the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). 5. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to appeal against the Order-in-Original. The Court clarified that the points raised in the writ petition could be argued in the appeal before the Tribunal. The decision on the merits of the case was left for the Tribunal to determine in accordance with the law.
|
