9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness of ship breaking. Petitioner No. 2 is one of its partners. The petitioners had imported four ships for which four Bills of Entry were filed. The said Bills of Entry were assessed provisionally for determination of the correct and proper clarification of various items on board of the ships. Petitioner No. 1 had executed necessary bond and made payment of customs duties. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 4 herein, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhavnagar passed final assessment orders without issuing any show cause notice and granting any opportunity of personal hearing. Those Bills of entry were finally assessed and duty was demanded. Petitioner No. 1, therefore, filed appeals before the Commissioner of Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority given opportunity to the appellants for personal hearing, the evidences put forth by the appellants could have been appreciated by the authority and reasoned orders could have been passed. 11.It is in view of the above findings and in the interest of justice, I feel that these matters need to be remanded back to the lower authority for the purpose of de novo consideration after following the principles of natural justice. The lower authority shall take into consideration the submissions made by the appellants before this authority and discussed in above paragraphs and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with the law. 12.In view of the above findings, all the subject impugned orders are set aside only for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue that ordinarily this Court would not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution where the petitioner has an equally efficacious alternative available to him. However, as per the well settled legal position, the alternative statutory remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Although the Court is generally loathe to exercise the jurisdiction when alternative remedy is available, it is merely a rule of prudence and a rule of caution. In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, AIR 1999 SC 22, the Apex Court has held that the alternative remedy would not be a bar in at least three contingencies, one of which is where there has been a violation of the pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
