9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods imported by the petitioner is covered by Notification No.146/94-Customs Serial no.1, dated 13th July, 1994. Records reveal that the petitioner was given an opportunity of personal hearing by the Adjudicating Officer and after hearing the petitioner, a final order had been passed. Although a personal hearing was given but non-consideration of such response by recording in the order that no reply was received appears to be a mechanical approach, apart from being violation of principles of natural justice. Although, there is an Appellate Authority, however, as the order-in-original stands vitiated and the order cannot be sustained. The same is, accordingly, set aside and is remanded back to the Adjudicating authority for re-hearing. Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vered by the Notification No.146/94-customs Serial no.1, dated 13th July, 1994, the petitioner had claimed exemption of duty. 4. According to the petitioner, despite the fact that the Director of Sports and Youth Services, Mizoram, Aizawl by communication dated 9th January, 2017 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Port) and by a further communication dated 9th February, 2017 had confirmed that the petitioner despite being a private company, however, since, the goods imported were for the project awarded by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India to NBCC which had since subcontracted the said job to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to exemption of duty, the demand-cum-show cause notice dated 14th May, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l hearing was noted, the order should not be set aside on the ground of non-consideration of the response. It is still further submitted that there is an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal. The petitioner has not bothered to challenge the aforesaid order by filing an appeal within the time prescribed. Since, the present writ petition has been filed belatedly, this Court ought not to, in the given case, entertain this writ petition. 9. Heard learned advocates for the parties and considered the materials on record. Admittedly, in this case it is noticed that the petitioner had imported sports goods for a project which was awarded by the Central Government to NBCC and NBCC had subcontracted the job to the petitioner. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
