9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10/2020-ADJN and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that they are engaged in the business of manufacturing rubber crumbs used in road laying and making other rubber allied products. The petitioner would submit that in the course of business, they have filed nine bill of entries on various dates for clearances of goods described as "used rubber tyre cut in two pieces" for the tune of Rs.48,91,401/- which involves duty amount of Rs.15,15,359/-. The products have been imported from United States. The petitioner would submit that there is a restriction in the import of used tyres except those which hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cern to appear for the personal hearing on 19.02.2021. During the hearing, request for cross examination was reiterated and the personal hearing was fixed on 16.06.2021. On the said date, the petitioner once again requested the respondents to cause examination of goods by a third party expert and also for cross examination. However, without granting request for cross examination, the first respondent adjudicated all the eight show cause notices, passed orders in O.A.Nos.5 to 11 of 2021 dated 29.06.2021 and imposed penalty asking the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,08,27,985/-. The petitioner, thereafter filed W.P.(MD) Nos.13225 and 13226 of 2021 before this Court once again that they were not permitted to cross examine the mahazar witness. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he submission of documents before 23.12.2022, no steps were taken in this regard. Though the petitioner had denied receipt of the said letter, the documents filed by the respondents would believe the said statement. 6. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents would bring to the notice of this Court the observation of this Court in the earlier round of litigation viz., W.P.(MD) Nos.13225 and 13226 of 2021, wherein this Court had observed as follows: "16. In this case, the import is from the United States of America. It is not clear why the import has been made through Tuticorin Port, in the tip of the Peninsula in the Bay of Bengal. If the petitioner's case is that the import was made for their factory in Rajasthan, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and the matter was remitted back. The first respondent was directed to pass orders within a period of three months. The petitioner was given the concession of relying on any document and collateral as evidence available with them and the first respondent was directed to pass orders after perusing the same and by applying the principles of preponderance of probability. However, the petitioner has not complied with the said direction. Further, the petitioner has an appellate remedy which he has not availed. A reading of the impugned order would clearly set out the fact that the petitioner has not filed a copy of the GST registration certificate at Rajasthan and though the first respondent has called upon the petitioner to produce the docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
