TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes customs duty demand, emphasizes procedural fairness and right to be heard</h1> <h3>ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUS., COCHIN</h3> ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUS., COCHIN - 2014 (311) E.L.T. 52 (Ker.) Issues:1. Challenge to notice demanding payment of customs duty without opportunity to show cause.2. Validity of notices issued by the competent officer.3. Compliance with procedural requirements before issuing order demanding payment of duty.4. Quashing of notices and direction for issuance of a show cause notice.Analysis:1. The petitioners, a public limited company and its Executive Personnel, challenged a notice (Ext. P5) demanding payment of customs duty without prior opportunity to show cause. The petitioners contended that no opportunity was given to them to present their case before the notice was issued, making it appealable. The High Court found this lack of opportunity as a ground to quash the impugned order (Ext. P5).2. The respondents argued that the notices (Exts. R1(b) and R1(d)) were issued by a competent officer, and no further hearing was necessary as the liability to pay duty was not disputed. However, the Court noted that despite the competence of the officer, the petitioners were entitled to a fair hearing before such a heavy duty amount was imposed.3. The Court observed that the petitioners had given notice under Section 23(2) after the extended period for payment specified in Ext. P3 order had lapsed. It was highlighted that the earlier notices (Exts. R1(b) and R1(d)) remained under suspension, and a show cause notice should have been issued before the subsequent order (Ext. P5) demanding payment of duty. The lack of reasons for imposing the duty amount and the absence of a speaking order were noted as procedural lapses.4. Based on the above findings, the Court quashed the notices (Exts. R1(b), R1(d), and P5) and directed the first respondent to issue a show cause notice to the petitioners, providing them with an opportunity to be heard before any further demand for duty payment. Emphasis was placed on the necessity of a reasoned order and compliance with procedural fairness in such matters.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the Original Petition, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness, reasoned orders, and the right to be heard before imposing significant duties on parties involved in customs matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
