9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner imported the Laser Press Facsimile equipment in May 1984 and the same was assessed by the Assistant Collector, Customs as an item chargeable to duty under Customs Tariff Heading 84.35 and the petitioner paid the duty of Rs. 80,59,513.80. But according to the Assistant Collector, the above equipment is in the nature of transmission and the reception apparatus and wireless equipment and hence decided to assess the goods under item 85.15 CTA read with 68 CET since the equipment imported was capable of working both on carrier lines and on wireless transmission and that there was a short levy of duty to the extent of Rs. 38,07,255/- towards the difference between the original assessment and the assessment. In that regard, show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral justice and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5.The learned Addl. Solicitor General appearing for the respondents contended that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner fixing the date of hearing on 12-8-1985. Thereafter by letter dated 14-8-1985 the date of hearing was fixed on 29-8-1985. In that letter it is specifically stated that adequate time was granted to the petitioner postponing the date of personal hearing. Therefore, the petitioner was requested to appear for personal hearing on 29-8-1985, failing which the case would be decided based on merits without further notice. Relying upon this, the learned Solicitor General has also state that even earlier it was specifically stated that unless the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so passing of orders on merit without any further notice. He further submits that after the disposal of the writ petitions the petitioner should have submitted his representation to the show cause notice. But he remained silent even after the writ petitions were dismissed. In these circumstances, the learned Addl. Solicitor General contended that there is no ground to quash the impugned order and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. On the other hand, there is laches on the part of the petitioner and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7.In reply to the arguments, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy submits that a perusal of the impugned order shows that additional levy of duty refers only b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e additional duty of Rs. 38,07,255/- (specified in the impugned order) was made. In the absence of any such adjudication, such a demand cannot be made. Therefore, inasmuch as the impugned order does not show that it is based upon any of the adjudication, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed as prayed for. 9.Considering the number of years the matter is pending, both the parties agreed that they will settle of the matter within one month and also agreed to fix a date of hearing of the petitioner to appear before the respondents and submit his reasons. Accordingly, the date of hearing of the petitioner before the respondents is fixed as 30-8-2004. The petitioner shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
