9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tutory appeal against the impugned order or if the matter is remitted back to the respondents to pass a fresh order, the consequential recovery proceedings can be kept in abeyance. Considering the fact that the Show Cause Notice No.11 of 2018, dated 07.02.2017 had remained unserved on the said company, the impugned order in Original No.72 of 2018, dated 20.02.2018 has been passed in violation of principal of natural justice. It is therefore liable to be quashed. Consequently, the impugned recovery notice is also liable to be quashed. The petitioner may have records to prove that there were inward foreign remittance on the exports. The case is remitted back to the second respondent to pass a fresh order within a period of 90 days from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent was liable to be quashed as it is in violation of principle of natural justice. It is further submitted that though the company has been closed, the petitioner as the director has all the records to substantiate that there was inward remittance of foreign exchange and that there was no violation of Rule16-A of the Customs Central Excise Dues in Service Tax Draw Back Rules, 1995. The impugned recovery notice, dated 14.07.2020, has been challenged primarily on the ground that since the impugned Original No.72 of 2018, dated 20.02.2018 was passed in violation of principle of natural justice, question of recovering the amount does not arise. It is futher submitted that the amount cannot be recovered from individual directors. 4. Op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore if a fair chance is given to file a statutory appeal against the impugned order or if the matter is remitted back to the respondents to pass a fresh order, the consequential recovery proceedings can be kept in abeyance. The impugned Order in Original No.72 of 2018, dated 20.02.2018 shows that the notice dated 24.01.2018 was preceded with a Show Cause Notice No.11 of 2018, dated 07.02.2018. It had remained unserved on the petitioner. The impugned Order in Original No.72 of 2018, also indicates that Show Cause Notice No.11 of 2018, dated 07.02.2018 was not served and had remained unserved on the said company and was returned on 10.02.2018 and therefore based on the available records, the said order has been passed by citing Rule16-A of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
