Shri Sanjay Jain vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ...

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II

APPEAL NO. C/1098 & 1099/08

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 107/08-09 CC (I) JNCH dated 03.07.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva.)

For approval and signature: Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Shri P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) =====================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

=====================================================

Shri Sanjay Jain M/s Lalman Fashions Pvt. Ltd.

: Appellant

Versus

Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva : Respondent

Appearance Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocate : For Appellant Shri A.K. Singh, Addl. Commr. (A.R.) : For Respondent

CORAM:

SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI P.S. PRUTHI, HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing : 26.02.2015 Date of Decision: 26.02.2015

ORDER NO.......................................................

Per: Anil Choudhary:

The present appeal is against Order-in-Original No. 107/08-09  CC(I) JNCH dated 03.07.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s Lalman Fashion Pvt. Ltd. are importers, engaged in trading of various embroidery thread. After DRI investigations on the basis of information it was found that the appellant were indulging in under valuation of embroidery thread imported from China and had concealed the actual value from customs, to evade and pay less duty. The appellant was given opportunity for personal hearing, which had been fixed on dates 22.01.2008, 05.02.2008 and 14.02.2008, wherein, appellant did not turn up for personal hearing. Hence the order was decided by learned Commissioner on merits, exparte.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Having considered the rival contention, I find that the learned Commissioner has passed the impugned order in gross violation of Rules of Natural justice, as appellant were granted three opportunities in one notice for personal hearing. Whereas, it is seen that the appellant had filed reply to the show-cause notice on 11.02.2008, which was not considered by the learned Commissioner vide passing impugned order. I notice that even the impugned order was passed in July, 2008 which was after 5 months from the last date granted for personal hearing. The Commissioner should have given a further opportunity or notice for personal hearing and should have considered the reply filed by the appellant, to the show-cause notice.

5. Therefore, I allow the appeal by way of remand for in sufficiency of notice for personal hearing. The appellant is directed to appear before the adjudicating authority within six weeks of receiving this order, along with his reply to show-cause notice and supportings, and seek an opportunity of personal hearing.

(Pronounced in open Court)

(P.S. Pruthi) (Anil Choudhary) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

Sp

2