Court sets aside Customs order, citing violation of Natural Justice. Emphasizes fair hearing. Remanded for fresh order.

The court set aside the order issued by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, citing a violation of Principles of Natural Justice due to inadequate response time and lack of essential details in the notice. The court emphasized the importance of a fair hearing and remanded the matter for a fresh order within six months, granting relief to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging order passed by Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise on grounds of violation of Principles of Natural Justice and inadequate time for response.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 5.9.2007 issued by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Moradabad, claiming that the response time provided in the show cause notice was insufficient. The petitioner argued that although the notice allowed 7 days for a reply, it was served on 29.08.2007, leaving inadequate time for a proper response. The petitioner contended that the reply was filed on 4.09.2007, but the respondent alleged it was received on 6.09.2007, leading to an ex parte order being passed on 05.09.2007. The petitioner also highlighted the lack of details regarding the alleged intelligence report, essential for contesting the allegations.

The respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner failed to file a reply, justifying the ex parte order. Additionally, it was asserted that the claimed rebate was rightly rejected due to the wrongful availing of CENVAT Credit on raw materials that did not enter the petitioner's factory premises. The court examined the submissions and records, concluding that the impugned order indeed violated the Principles of Natural Justice. Notably, the notice issued on 28.08.2007 allowed 7 days for a response, with the petitioner receiving it on 29.08.2007. The court found the response time inadequate, especially since the relied-upon documents were not provided to the petitioner, further hampering a fair hearing.

Based on the above considerations, the court set aside the impugned order, emphasizing the necessity of providing a proper and reasonable opportunity for a hearing. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh order within six months, ensuring due process and compliance with the law. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, granting relief to the petitioner.

---