Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Maersk India Pvt. Limited vs Cc, Icd Tughlakabad, New Delhi on 30 March, 2016
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi. Date of hearing/ decision: 30.03.2016 For Approval and Signature: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes Customs Appeal No. 390 of 2010 (Arising out of the Order in Original No. 36/2009 dated 09.04.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi). M/s Maersk India Pvt. Limited Appellant Vs. CC, ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi Respondent
Appearance:
Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for the appellant Ms. Suchitra Sharma, Commr (AR) and Sh. Sanjay Jain, DR for the respondent Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 51105 / 2016 Per Archana Wadhwa:
The grievance of the appellant is that the impugned order stands passed in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the appellant was not heard in person.
2. We find that the adjudicating authority have observed as under:
13.2 Personal hearing in the case was fixed for 20.01.2009 and the same was communicated to the noticees vide letter dated 01.1.2009. The noticees were also requested to file their written reply to the show cause notice on or before the date fixed for personal hearing. It was also made clear that no further opportunity of personal hearing would be granted and the case would be adjudicated on the basis of available records. Nobody appeared for the personal hearing on 20.1.2009. Instead, letter dated 17.1.2009 from Sh. Deepak Jain, Proprietor of M/s Chirag Textiles and letter dated 17.1.2009 and 28.1.2009 from Sh. Ankit Gulati, proprietor of M/s Pacific International were received wherein they stated that the relied upon documents had not been received and requested for adjournment of personal hearing fixed for 20.1.2009. Therefore, personal hearing was again fixed for 10.2.2009. Nobody appeared for the personal hearing on 10.2.2009, nor was received any communication from the noticees for adjournment of the same. It is on record that the noticees have been supplied with the relied upon documents. They have neither submitted their written defence reply to the show cause notice, nor appeared on the dates fixed for personal hearing in the case. It is observed that the noticees have been granted sufficient time to file their written reply and ample opportunities for personal hearing were afforded to the noticees to present their defence in person. In view of this, and in terms of the provisions of section 122A of the Customs Act, 1962, I consider it appropriate to proceed to adjudicate the instant case.
3. Ld. Advocate submits that they did not receive the said communication fixing the dates of hearing from the Revenue and as such were not aware of the same. On the contrary, the Revenue has placed on record a communication received from the office of the Commissioner indicated that the appellant were sent with a notice for hearing on 20.01.2009 but the same was returned back by the postal authorities with the remarks refused to accept. However, no evidence stands placed on record showing the delivery of the second notice of hearing fixed for 10.02.2009.
4. In any case and in view of the matter, it is an admitted on record that the appellant did not cause appearance before the adjudicating authority and the impugned order stands passed without hearing them, even though the personal hearing dates were fixed by the Commissioner on two occasions. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant would place the correct address on record and is ready to cause appearance before the authorities, as and when date for the same is fixed. Accordingly, we set-aside the impugned order and remand the mater back to the Commissioner for fresh decision. Needless to say that the appellant would be given an effective opportunity to putforth their case in person. It is also made clear that the appellant would not seek unnecessary adjournment and would cooperate in the adjudication process. Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
(Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (B. Ravichandran) Member (Technical) Pant