9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t interest of justice to set aside the order impugned, subject to the petitioner company being required to make a pre-deposit of ₹ 5 lakh before the concerned commissioner for the concerned commissioner to revisit the matter within four weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order upon affording the petitioners a chance to be represented at a hearing. In the event the substance of the order is maintained after the matter is heard afresh, the deposit to be made pursuant to this order will stand forfeited. In the event the commissioner passes a different order and accepts the petitioner company’s claim for the product to be regarded under Chapter 56 of the Schedule, the deposit will be refunded without interest. - Petition disposed of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... negating the petitioners contention as to classification without affording a copy thereof to the petitioners. In respect of the second aspect, the petitioners refer to paragraph 4.10 of the order wherein the commissioner has relied on a report obtained by the adjudicating authority in connection with the product of another party by the name of Pratap Synthetics Limited. It does not appear that a copy of the report relating to Pratap Synthetics Limited was made over to the petitioners or that the petitioners were put on notice that such report would be used, effectively, against the petitioners. The entirety of the report is not quoted in the impugned order and only the part perceived to be relevant by the commissioner has been extracted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the recording therein that the representatives of the petitioning assessee were present at the hearing and merely relied on the written reply to the show-cause notices furnished earlier. The department also claims that the commissioner came to an independent conclusion, without the assistance of the report pertaining to Pratap Synthetics Limited, that the goods would be covered by Chapter 39 and not by Chapter 56. In the limited exercise of superintendence in this extraordinary jurisdiction, it is the sanctity of the process that is looked into, rather than the correctness of the order on merits. More often than not, orders of executive functionaries with considerable expertise over a matter are questioned in this jurisdiction and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
