9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing. The Commissioner (Appeals) in absence of other noticees could not have disturbed the order of Commissioner. Firstly, without any appeal being filed by the Department, it is questionable whether the Commissioner could have taken such a step. Secondly, in any case, without any notice, the other noticees had earned the verdict of dropping the proceedings. The appellate Commissioner could not have disturbed such order which would be plainly opposed to the principles of natural justice - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18023 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2016 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. MOHINDER PAL, JJ. FOR THE PETITONER : MR PARESH M DAVE, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MRS VD NANAVATI, ADVOCATE ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURAB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w cause notice. Having recorded his final findings on various relevant aspects of the matter, he remanded the proceedings to the Commissioner for fresh decision since, in his opinion, full facts were not available on the record. Relevant portion of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reads as under: 6.7 The allegations made in the Show Cause Notices are confirmed. (i) The goods i.e. 68630 kgs of Heavy Melting Scrap, contained in the Container Numbers (I) BAXU 2600877 (ii) BAXU 2620512 (iii) BAXU 2620512 (iv) BAXU 3600784 valued at ₹ 15,37,090/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Ninety only), are liable for confiscation under the provisions of Section 111(d), 111(m) and 111(n) read with Section 119 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e qua non to meet the ends of justice... . .. .. . .. .. ORDER 7. The Order No.KDL/JC/RMG/01/2015 dated 29.04.2015 of the lower authority is set aside with a direction that the adjudicating authority will impose penalties along with confiscation appropriate redemption fine (if any), keeping in view the above findings observations. While carrying out adjudication, the gravity of the offence modus operandi, may be taken into consideration. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 4. This order is challenged by the petitioners on two grounds. The first ground urged by the counsel for petitioners is that the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have allowed the appeal and reversed the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was confined only to Krishna Clearing. The Commissioner (Appeals) in absence of other noticees could not have disturbed the order of Commissioner. Firstly, without any appeal being filed by the Department, it is questionable whether the Commissioner could have taken such a step. Secondly, in any case, without any notice, the other noticees had earned the verdict of dropping the proceedings. The appellate Commissioner could not have disturbed such order which would be plainly opposed to the principles of natural justice. 8. Under the circumstances, qua petitioners No.2 to 5 the impugned order dated 12.10.2015 is quashed. We make it clear that this is not on merit of the issues involved and merely on the grounds of non-hearing of the conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
