Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Gagan Steels Sales vs Union Of India And Others on 11 October, 2010
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Ajay Kumar Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.17506 of 2010
Date of decision: 11.10.2010
M/s Gagan Steels Sales
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. H.P.S.Ghuman, Advocate for the respondents
****
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J (Oral)
This petition seeks quashing of order dated 4.3.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent no.2-Additional Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana confirming the demand of customs duty and imposing the penalty and final order dated 27.7.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Settlement Commission rejecting the application of the petitioner.
Case of the petitioner is that it imported goods under Open General Licence Scheme and requisite duty was duly paid. The impugned order dated 4.3.2010 was passed stating that the petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notice dated 10.12.2008. According to the petitioner, the said notice was never served upon the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Settlement Commission but since on the date of application filed by the petitioner, the impugned order had already been despatched, the application of the petitioner was rejected as not maintainable.
Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 4.3.2010 having been passed without notice to the petitioner was illegal and against the principle of natural justice. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in Sonia Overseas(P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2009 (241) ELT 38 setting aside an identical order and directing appropriate order being passed after service of notice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if a fresh order is to be passed, the petitioner may be able to take its remedy before the Settlement Commission.
Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the applicability of the judgment of this Court in Sonia Overseas(P) Ltd.'s case (supra). Thus, the said order has to be quashed. In this view of the matter, the validity of the order of the Settlement Commission need not be gone into at this stage.
Accordingly, we allow this writ petition and set aside order dated 4.3.2010 (Annexure P-2) leaving it open to the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
The petition is disposed of.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Judge
October 11,2010 (Ajay Kumar Mittal)
Pka Judge