9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stan Engineering Corporation, and Petitioner having challenged those findings in the Appeal, the CESTAT should have specifically dealt with the grounds of challenge raised by Petitioner, and should have given independent findings as regards role of the Petitioner. Not having done so, and in view of the fact that the averment of Petitioner in the Petition that Petitioner was not given notice of hearing, which has not been denied, in the interest of justice, Petitioner should be given hearing by CESTAT. If a party does not turn up, it is not possible for CESTAT to go though the entire Appeal of the party, consider the grounds and pass a detailed order. At the same time, the CESTAT ought to have checked if a party has been properly served b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner had conspired in alleged mis-declaration and undervaluation of Modems imported by one M/s. Hindustan Engineering Corporation. 5. Petitioner responded to the show cause notice and also attended personal hearing. 6. An order against Petitioner came to be passed on 30 th November 2007 imposing penalty on Petitioner. Petitioner preferred an Appeal before CESTAT and also applied for waiver of pre-deposit. By an order dated 30th December 2008, CESTAT was pleased to waive the predeposit of entire penalty imposed on Petitioner and stayed recovery thereof till disposal of the Appeal. 7. On or about 14th December 2017, after 9 years of Petitioner being granted stay, Petitioner s Appeal came to be dismissed by an ex-parte order. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld have also considered the grounds raised by Petitioner in the Appeal even in the absence of Petitioner. Mr.Raichandani stated that the Appeal has impugned role attributed to Petitioner in the order originally passed by Commissioner and if Tribunal is going to rely on what Commissioner has recorded, certainly Tribunal should have considered the grounds of Appeal raised by Petitioner. 11. In our view, when Petitioner has been accused of having played role in the procurement of electronic systems and parts for manufacture of automated teller machines and Petitioner has been imposed penalty of Rs.Seventy Five Lakhs under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for its alleged role in the import effected by M/s. Hindustan Engineering Corporat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
