9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w cause notice is the basis on which any order can be passed against a person. This is the basic requirement of the principles of natural justice. As the show cause notice was not issued to the appellant, the appellant did not file any reply. The appellant cannot be faulted for not filing a reply since the show cause notice did not call upon the appellant to file a reply. The impugned order against the appellant deserves to be set aside. It would, therefore, not be necessary to examine whether the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice under section 28(4) of the Customs Act - the impugned order, in so far as it imposes a penalty of ₹ 10,00,000/- on the appellant under section 112(a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s Yug International Pvt. Ltd.; and Ankur Agarwal, Director of M/s Asia Pacific Impex Pvt. Ltd., to show cause, but a copy of this show cause notice was also sent to the appellant. 3. The Principal Commissioner however, even though the show cause notice did not require the appellant to show cause, imposed a penalty upon the appellant under section 112(a) of the Customs Act. 4. Shri Rakesh Puri learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that not only the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence did not have the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice under section 28 of the Customs Act in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Canon India Private vs. Commissioner of Customs [2021 (3) TMI 384- S.C.], but even otherwi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic requirement of the principles of natural justice. As the show cause notice was not issued to the appellant, the appellant did not file any reply. The appellant cannot be faulted for not filing a reply since the show cause notice did not call upon the appellant to file a reply. 9. Thus, for this reason alone, the impugned order against the appellant deserves to be set aside. It would, therefore, not be necessary to examine whether the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice under section 28(4) of the Customs Act. 10. The impugned order dated 14.10.2019, in so far as it imposes a penalty of ₹ 10,00,000/- on the appellant under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, deserves to be set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
