9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n any person or entity which maybe that of recovery of duty, with attendant interest and penalty, of withholding of amount claimed as refund, of confiscation of goods for vesting with the Central Government or of penalty being imposed. Such notices, mandated in proceedings arising from section 27, section 28 and section 124 of Customs Act, 1962, comprise allegations against, as also the proposed consequential detriment prescribed by law to, each of the entities or persons therein. It is worth noting that, even in the same order, some outcomes may flow from ex parte proceedings which stand on an entirely different footing from others in which defence has been offered. Reversion to such natural autonomy, inhering for each noticee, is, thus, neither improper nor is the piece-meal disposal that has been judicially frowned upon; it is the partial disposal of issues in a notice, whether in relation to one noticee or all, that jeopardizes the integrity of the proceedings warranting appellate or writ intervention. It is merely the convenience of common adjudication, a privilege that the Central Board of Excise Customs (CBEC) invoked under the authority of its delegated empowerment in Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), had allowed stay of proceedings pending disposal of the writ petition which the adjudicating authority considered to be bar on conduct of further proceedings on the entirety of the notice for taking recourse to transfer to call book , an extra statutory practice prevalent in formations under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes Customs (CBIC); it was contended that liquidation of the appellant-company stood seriously jeopardized by this suo motu action. It was also intimated that a similar petition of theirs, under Article 226 of the Constitution, before the Hon ble High Court had been withdrawn by them for this very reason. We have heard Learned Authorized Representative who submitted that deferring of adjudication was not a detriment to the importer-appellant as liability, if any, would crystallize only after adjudication. 2. Considering the restricted scope of appeal, we allow the application; for the same reason, and as neither facts nor allegations contained in the show cause notice are germane to relief sought, the appeal is taken up for disposal with consent of both sides. 3. The facts, briefly, are that, consequent upon in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the hearing and final disposal of the petition further adjudication of the show cause notice shall also remain stayed. in the order of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay. It was further submitted that it is well-settled legal principle that piece-meal adjudication is grossly improper. 6. With the backdrop of these rival contentions, we turn to the correctness of the presumption by the adjudicating authority that the order of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay was intended to cease further proceedings in entirety. It is well-settled in law that an order or judgement, of appellate authority or constitutional court, operates qua the appellant/petitioner and respondent therein and none else even though qualified to be cited as precedent should another identically, or even similarly, situated appellant/petitioner plead for nondiscriminatory applicability for such relief/detriment. Therefore, the relief granted to M/s MMTC Ltd and two others in the writ petition filed by them operates only insofar as the notice relates to them. There can, thus, be no bar, on account of the stay, for the adjudicating authority to restrict the call book status to those who had obtained stay. This is more ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice, whether in relation to one noticee or all, that jeopardizes the integrity of the proceedings warranting appellate or writ intervention. 9. It may have been possible to be uncritical of the adumbrated reluctance on the part of the adjudicating authority, even in the absence of any legal or procedural impediment, in prioritizing convenience of disposal over consideration of individual preferences, had the impugned notice emanated from a particular transaction vis- -vis all the noticees. Such leeway certainly cannot be vested in the adjudicating authority when multiple transactions qua the same noticee are contained in one notice. The facts of the impugned proceedings strain even such tolerable initiative. The records make it obvious that proceedings were initiated in relation to 186 consignments of which the appellant was concerned with 91 while M/s MMTC Ltd and M/s Tamil Nadu Newsprint Ltd were concerned with 90 and 5 respectively with no hint even of convergence on facts for adjudication, let alone for issue of show cause notice, in common. That such recourse was had does not obviate the circumstances in which separate notices would, normally, have been resorted to. 10. We tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
