2018 (9) TMI 593 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – 2018 (362) E.L.T. 1026 (Mad.) – Exemption from CVD – Serial No.1A(i) of Notification No.4/2006-CE, dated 01.03.2006 – petitioner could not produce the invoices as well as the bill of entries questioned by the authority – the petitioner says that the authority has passed orders without considering all the bill of entries and complete set of invoices. Now, the petitioner has traced those documents. Therefore, non consideration will lead to failure of justice and gross injustice will be done to the parties – Principles of Natural Justice.
–
Held that:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in very many cases, has held that instead of rejecting the matter on the ground of technicalities, it shall be seen that substantial justice is done on merits of the matter. Here is the case, there are materials, which should have been considered by the authority, which are now available before the Court. Consideration of these materials evidences may change the cause of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
006 for availing the exemption of Counter Veiling Duty (CVD). The petitioner has complied with the conditions and filed for exemption. However, by show cause notice dated 15.07.2015, the respondent called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the concession availed by him should not be denied and recovery of duty with interest and penalty of the duty with interest and penalty should not be imposed. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 27.10.2015 to the show cause notice. At the time of filing his reply, he was not in a position to explain the documents pertaining to the bill of entries, but, found complete set of sales invoices and sales tax return files. The respondents, vide Order-in-Original in Order No.82 of 2015 dated 20.11.2015 confirming the demand of differential duty made by him with an appropriate interest under Section 28 (AA) (1) and (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 [hereinafter referred to as the Act ] and imposed a penalty of ₹ 5,37,998/- under Section
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e procedure adopted by him was not transparent. In view of the notification issued by the respondent in Notification No.4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006, the petitioner is fully eligible to avail the exemption. The parameters influence the MRP price and in view of the material evidence produced by the petitioner, the demand of differential duty under Section 28 (4) of the Act does not arise at all and penalty cannot be imposed under Section 114 (A) of the Act. 3. As seen above, the appellate authority has rejected the petitioner's appeal on the technical ground of limitation. It is submitted that the relevant documents could not be produced before passing orders and the original authority has also not considered the materials produced before it at the time of passing orders. 4. In such circumstances, the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad [Larger Bench] in the case of Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd., vs. Union of India, reported in 2015 (326) E.L.T 532 (Guj.) held as under: (A) The
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
medabad clearly held that when an order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, without considering the relevant materials, which ought to have been considered and where resulted in gross injustice, this Court, under Article 226, can interfere with the order passed by the authority. 6. In the instant case also, the petitioner says that the authority has passed orders without considering all the bill of entries and complete set of invoices. Now, the petitioner has traced those documents. Therefore, non consideration will lead to failure of justice and gross injustice will be done to the parties. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in very many cases, has held that instead of rejecting the matter on the ground of technicalities, it shall be seen that substantial justice is done on merits of the matter. Here is the case, there are materials, which should have been considered by the authority, which are now available before the Court. Consideration of these materials evidenc
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =