9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 14th May, 2013 was issued by the third respondent to the above private limited company. The statement of the petitioner dated 13th December, 2012 recorded during investigation was relied upon. That show-cause notice was adjudicated and an Order-in-Original dated 5th June, 2013 was passed by the respondent. 7 Aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order, the private limited company preferred an Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). That came to be dismissed as the condition of predeposit was not complied with. Though there was an application for review and pending, that was not considered. Subsequently, the Appeal itself was dismissed on 27th June, 2014. 8 Further aggrieved, the company carried the matter to the CESTAT. The CESTAT on 1st September, 2014 allowed the company's Appeal. It set aside the order of the first appellate authority as also the adjudication authority. The matter was to be adjudicated afresh. However, the second respondent in this petition made an application seeking to rectify the order passed by the Tribunal dated 1st September, 2014. At his request, the matter was remanded not to the adjudicating authority but to the appellate authority. That a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against him belatedly. There are no valid grounds or reasons which can be found from reading of the show-cause notice itself so as to proceed against the petitioner. 12 Mr. Kantawala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the above grounds in the Writ Petition. He submitted that this is a case akin to those dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and several High Courts, namely, a second show-cause notice is not maintainable on the same allegations and when on earlier show-cause notice, there was an adjudication order already passed. Therefore, once a statutory authority applied its mind and formed an opinion as regards the liability or otherwise of the petitioner, then, on a second thought it cannot issue a show-cause notice. The show-cause notice issued on the same set of allegations according to Shri Kantawala, in the present case is, therefore, not tenable. 13 He places reliance on the following judgments: (1) Siemens Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2007(207) E.L.T. 168 (S.C.); (2) Dee Kay Exports Vs. Union of India 2011 (264) E.L.T. 366 (P & H); (3) Twenty First Century Steels (L) Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex., Chandigarh 2010 (255) E.L.T. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the interim order were not complied with and the miscellaneous application was dismissed, the Appeal itself did not survive and stood dismissed accordingly. 18 Against such a dismissal, the Tribunal was approached and on 1st September, 2014, the Tribunal expressed an opinion that instead of insisting on a pre-deposit and because the goods imported are still under the custody of customs, that is sufficient security. Merely because the amount of penalty as directed has not been deposited, that should not result in a dismissal of the Appeal without adjudication on merits. That is why the Tribunal made the following order: "4.1 Inasmuch as the goods under importation are still in the custody of the Customs pending reexport, the interest of the Revenue is secure. Therefore, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhavya Apparels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI - 2007 (216) ELT 347 (SC) there is no need to make any pre-deposit of dues adjudged. Accordingly, we grant waiver from pre- deposit of dues adjudged against the appellant and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for decision on merits. Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay petition is also disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce both are private limited companies, but the associates of the same having not specifically named, for technical grounds, the show-cause notice and the adjudication should not fail. That is why the impugned show-cause notice dated 26th August, 2015 not only refers to the statements of the petitioner and one Rajanya Ravasia but alleges that as far as Rupin Bankar is concerned, he is one of the Directors of the firm M/s. Bankar Corporation Ltd. U.K. The wife of Rupin, Meenakshi was also a Director. Thus, Rupin Bankar is the mastermind in this total operation of import of these bogus memory cards and he hatched this conspiracy of import from his own country. These are the prima facie allegations against the petitioner. Now, the petitioner is specifically proceeded against. We do not see why in the teeth of the above factual position can a specific show-cause notice not be addressed to the petitioner. That show-cause notice is addressed admittedly before the adjudication against the two private limited company reaching any finality. Therefore, this is not an afterthought or a mere change of opinion. Secondly, this is not a case like before the Supreme Court or other High Courts where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
