Impugned order quashed: Violation of natural justice. Remitted for fresh consideration.

The Bombay High Court found that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to respond to the material considered before the order was passed. The court quashed the order dated 20.5.2014 and remitted the matter back to the Settlement Commissioner for fresh consideration, emphasizing that all legal contentions would be considered in the new proceedings. No costs were awarded in this case.

---

---

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order

In this judgment by the Bombay High Court, the issue revolved around the violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order. The court noted that the impugned order was passed without providing the petitioner with an opportunity to meet the material considered in the order. The court found that the order was in violation of natural justice principles as the petitioner was not given a chance to respond to the material considered by the Settlement Commissioner before the order was passed.

The court highlighted that during the proceedings, the Counsel for the petitioner was heard by the Settlement Commissioner without the report of the Commissioner of Customs being placed on record or the revenue representative being present. Subsequently, the Revenue submitted its report after the hearing. The impugned order was passed after considering the submissions made by the petitioner and the report of the Respondent No.2, which was filed after the hearing. The court emphasized that the petitioner was not provided with a copy of the material considered nor given an opportunity to respond to it before the order was passed.

Based on the above observations, the court concluded that the impugned order was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the order dated 20.5.2014 and remitted the matter back to the Settlement Commissioner for fresh consideration on its own merits. The court clarified that it did not delve into the merits of the case and all legal contentions available to the parties would be considered by the Settlement Commissioner in the fresh proceedings. The court made the rule absolute in the specified terms and did not order any costs.

---