9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing after the corrigendum was issued and such personal hearing should have been granted to the petitioner after they had submitted their reply. The petitioner had no such opportunity to submit their reply, hence on this ground alone the impugned order is liable for interference - matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand. - W.P.No.25765 of 2014, And M.P.No.1 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 11-2-2015 - Mr. T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Raghavan For the Respondents : Mr. C.Kanagaraj CGSC ORDER Heard Mr.R.Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.C.Kanagaraj, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f time. A show cause notice dated 29.04.2014 was issued to the petitioner in exercise of power under Rule 54(2) of the SEZ Rules 2006 read with Section 13 Section 11(2) of the FTDR Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action under Section 13 of the FTDR Act read with Rule 54 of the SEZ, Rules 2006 should not be taken otherwise. 5.The petitioner vide explanation dated 31.05.2014 submitted their explanation stating that the product manufactured are Pendants and they adopted the parlance test to the product and would contend that the product manufactured by them are classifiable as Pendents and it is not the case of mis-declaration. The personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner on 23.06.2014, in which the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gendum was issued. That apart the petitioner's grievance is that they did not have any time to submit the reply to the corrigendum wherein they have also questioned the jurisdiction of the authority to invoke provisions of the Act. In fact a draft reply to the corrigendum to the show cause notice has been filed in the typed set of papers, which according to the petitioner, they have made ready and could have submitted, if opportunity would have granted. 7.In the light of the above, it is evidently clear that the impugned order is vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice. As noticed above, the petitioner did not have sufficient opportunity to submit their reply to the corrigendum issued to the show cause notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
