9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed Hon'ble Mr Justice V.K. Jain 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes V.K. JAIN, J. 1. By this common order, we shall dispose of all the five writ petitions referred above, which involve identical questions of fact and law. 2. The petitioners are officers of the Customs Department. Show-cause notices were issued to the petitioners by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, requiring them to show cause as to why penal action under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 be not taken against them. Vide Order - in - Original No.04/GS/CC/DRI/NC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the respondent was the address of the exporter and not of the Customs Officers. Though Shri B.B.Goel, petitioner in WP.(C).1688/2010 has not filed a copy of the appeal of the Department in his case, we presume that the appeal filed against him was identical to the appeals filed against other petitioners. 4. The Tribunal vide Order dated 18.6.2009, remanded all the appeals filed by the Department against Customs Officers to the Adjudicating Authority for de novo proceedings, after noticing that none of the respondents was present. In the order passed by the Tribunal, the exporters were shown as respondents. None of the Customs Officers was shown as a respondent in the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioners without serving any notice upon them and without giving any opportunity of hearing to them is, therefore, liable to be set aside to the extent it relates to the present petitioners. As a necessary consequence, the fresh order passed by the respondent No.2 in de novo proceedings conducted by him, pursuant to the order of the Tribunal dated 18.6.2009, is also liable to be set aside, to the extent it pertains to the petitioners. 7. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, the impugned order dated 18.6.2009 passed by the Tribunal as well as the impugned orders dated 21.12.2009 passed by respondent No.2, to the extent they impose penalty upon the petitioners, are hereby set aside. The Tribunal is directed to pass f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
