2014 (12) TMI 487 - HC - Customs

Court directs swift conclusion of adjudication proceedings for specific cases, emphasizes timely compliance with the law.

ASHIT RAMESHCHANDRA TARMASTER Versus ADDL. COMMR. OF CUS. (PREV.) -II

The court disposed of the petition without deciding on the reward amount's entitlement or quantum. It directed the adjudicating authorities to promptly ... Reward for providing information - Information providing for cases where raid conducted and proceedings initiated - Held that:- out of five cases, in two cases the matters are remanded to the adjudicating authority by CESTAT and in one case the adjudication proceedings is still pending. It also appears that so far as two other cases are concerned the Units are closed and non-working since long and in one case the Department has already attached the property on 21-2-2008. However, GIIC in the case of M/s. Shivani Sizers Pvt. Ltd. has claimed that the Unit is under possession of GIIC. In view of this, as such, it will not be possible at this stage to ascertain the amount of reward, if any, due and payable to the petitioner - Appropriate authority directed to adjudicate the respective cases i.e. in the case of M/s. Mudra Texturising Pvt. Ltd., Surat; M/s. Chandralon Texurising Pvt. Ltd., Surat and M/s. Goyani Textiles, Surat and conclude the adjudication proceedings and pass an appropriate order/final order of adjudication in accordance with law and on its own merits at the earliest. - Application disposed of. Issues:1. Petition for mandamus or certiorari for payment of reward amount.2. Legal actions against units for recovery of penalty.3. Departmental proceedings against officers for delay in payment.4. Completion of adjudication proceedings.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus or certiorari for the payment of a reward amount of Rs. 35 lakhs with interest. The petitioner claimed entitlement to the reward for providing information leading to raids and proceedings initiation. However, the respondents highlighted that in two cases, matters were remanded to the adjudicating authority by CESTAT, and in one case, adjudication proceedings were still pending. Additionally, two units were closed, one unit's property was attached, and another unit was claimed to be under GIIC's possession. Thus, the court found it challenging to determine the reward amount due at that stage.2. The petitioner's advocate expressed satisfaction if the adjudicating authorities were directed to complete the proceedings promptly. The court, without deciding on the reward amount's entitlement or quantum, disposed of the Special Civil Application. The court directed the appropriate authority to adjudicate and conclude proceedings for specific cases promptly, including those of M/s. Mudra Texturising Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Chandralon Texurising Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Goyani Textiles, all based in Surat.3. The judgment emphasized the need for the adjudication proceedings to be completed swiftly and in accordance with the law, without expressing any opinion on the merits favoring either party regarding the entitlement to the reward amount. The court's decision was focused on directing the concerned authorities to conclude the adjudication proceedings promptly and pass appropriate orders based on the merits of each case.4. The court disposed of the petition, permitting direct service, after issuing directions for the completion of adjudication proceedings in the specified cases. The judgment highlighted the importance of expeditiously concluding the adjudication process and refrained from making any determination on the reward amount's entitlement or calculation, leaving it to be decided based on the completion of proceedings and the merits of each case.