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 sets aside duty demand, remands for fresh adjudication without alert circular. Petitioner granted time to respond.</h1> <h3>Vedanta Limited, Versus Union of India, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Commissioner of Customs, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence New Delhi, Goa</h3> Vedanta Limited, Versus Union of India, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Commissioner of Customs, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence New Delhi, Goa - ... Issues Involved:Challenging the legality and validity of an alert circular and a subsequent order demanding duty, violation of principles of natural justice, and the requirement of personal hearing before decision-making.Analysis:The petitioner sought various reliefs through the petition, including challenging the legality and validity of an alert circular and a subsequent order demanding duty. The petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned letter demanding duty referred to a general alert circular issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), but the petitioner was not provided a copy of this alert circular. The counsel contended that such instructions in the alert circular could influence the adjudicating authority, violating principles of natural justice. The counsel emphasized the lack of a personal hearing, which is essential for fair play. The counsel urged the court to set aside the impugned letter without requiring the petitioner to pursue alternative remedies under the Customs Act, 1962.The standing counsel for the respondents referred to an affidavit stating that the matter could be remanded for fresh adjudication without reliance on the alert circular. It was proposed that the adjudicating authority would decide the matter on its own merits after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned letter and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, directing that the alert circular should not be referenced or relied upon.The petitioner's counsel requested a copy of the alert circular to understand its potential influence on the decision-making process. The court directed the respondents to provide a copy of the alert circular to the petitioner within seven days. The petitioner was granted time to respond to the show cause notice in light of the alert circular. The adjudicating authority was instructed to decide the matter independently, without relying on the alert circular, and to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner before making a decision.The petitioner's counsel, without prejudice, stated that the challenge to the alert circular was not being pursued at that time. The court disposed of the petition accordingly, with no order as to costs, and directed all parties to act based on the court's order.This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the petition, the arguments presented by both parties, the court's decision, and the directives issued for further proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
