9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Order-in-Original. We are not inclined to pass any order or direction or writ in the present writ petition upon the respondents. The Tribunal is the final fact finding authority. The Appellate Tribunal in this case is CESTAT, under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner is permitted to prefer an appeal under the Customs Act, 1962 against the Order-in-Original dated 30th June, 2020 (Annexure P-7) which is under challenge in this writ petition and raise all the points which are agitated in this writ petition as well as to agitate all the grounds on the merits of the case as well - Petition dismissed. - W.P.(C) 6293/2020 & CM APPL. 22386/2020 - - - Dated:- 20-10-2020 - HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is an appealable order under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962 4. As an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, we are not inclined to go into the fine niceties of the facts, which have been narrated by the counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents has also taken this Court through paragraphs 1, 2, 5, and 21 of the Order-in-Original dated 30th June, 2020 (Annexure P-7). . 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without giving a hearing to the petitioner, the Order-in-Original dated 30.06.2020 was passed. He further submitted that the notice of hearing was never served upon the petitioner. Moreover, in absence of any reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice, there w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by the statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up. 13. In Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] this Court observed: (SCC pp. 440-41, para 11) 11. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Union of India [(1997) 5 SCC 536] B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. (speaking for the majority of the larger Bench) observed: (SCC p. 607, para 77) 77. So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226-or for that matter, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32-is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the Act cannot bar and curtail these remedies. It is, however, equally obvious that while exercising the power under Article 226/Article 32, the Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment...... (emphasis supplied) c. It has been held in judgment of Hon ble the Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed. Paragraph 20 of the Order-in-Original reads as under:- 20. (i) As per record, the noticee was informed vide office letter C. No. VIII/ DLI/CusPrev/Adj/EPC/Roh/Ambrane/ 86/2019 dated 03.09.2019 that the personal hearing was fixed for 19.09.2019 in the instant case but neither the noticee nor any authorised representative on behalf of the noticee appeared for personal hearing. (ii) The noticee was informed vide office letter C. No. VIII/DLI/CusPrev/Adj/EPC/Roh/Ambrane/86/2019 dated 23.09.2019 that the personal hearing was again fixed for 10.10.2019 in the instant case but neither the noticee nor any authorised representative on behalf of the noticee appeared for personal hearing. (iii) Further, the noticee was in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
