Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Gupta Impex vs Union Of India & Another on 26 May, 2010
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Alok Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.7330 of 2010
Date of decision: 26.5.2010
M/s Gupta Impex.
-----Petitioner.
Vs.
Union of India & another.
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
Present:- Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate for respondents.
---
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 26.2.2010 passed by respondent No.2 under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, "the Act").
2. Case of the petitioner is that it imported material under Open General Licence and requisite duty was duly paid. Inspite of the said payment, impugned order dated 26.2.2010 was passed, asking for further payment of duty without taking into account the duty already paid. Vide order dated 19.12.2005, passed by this Court in P.P. Industries v. Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar 2007(220) ELT 55, Annexure P-1, this Court held that due credit has to be given for the customs duty already paid. Still order, Annexure P-2, was passed without giving credit for duty paid and without serving any notice to the petitioner. CWP No.7330 of 2010 2 Thus, the order passed without complying with principles of natural justice was liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in Sonia Overseas(P) Ltd. v. Union of India 2009(241) ELT 38.
3. On 28.4.2010, following order was passed:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the impugned order has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in similar circumstances, this Court interfered with a similar order in Sonia Overseas (P) Ltd. v. Union of India 2009(241) ELT 38.
Notice of motion.
Mr. G.S. Ghuman, Advocate, present in Court, accepts notice and seeks time.
List again on 26.5.2010."
4. Reply has been filed stating that notices were duly served but during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents stated that notices were served only by ordinary post and not by registered post, as required under Section 153 of the Act.
5. In view of above position, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is set aside with liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
The petition is disposed of.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
May 26, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH )
ashwani JUDGE