Court directs petitioner to exhaust remedies before authority under Customs Act, emphasizing legal procedures.

The court disposed of the petitions challenging the show cause notice under the Customs Act, 1962. It directed the petitioner to exhaust available remedies before the relevant authority, emphasizing adherence to legal procedures. The court highlighted the importance of allowing the authority to decide the matter independently, based on legal precedents cited by the petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Allegation of diverting high-quality polyester fabric procured from 100% EOU for domestic market.
3. Show cause notice confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Daman.
4. CESTAT quashing the order and remanding the matter for reconsideration.
5. Delay in readjudication leading to issuance of a fresh show cause notice after 8 years.
6. Petitioner's reliance on previous court decisions.
7. Court's decision on the petitions against the show cause notice.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a challenge to the penalty imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 based on allegations of procuring high-quality polyester fabric from 100% EOU and diverting it for the domestic market instead of exporting as required.

2. The show cause notice was confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Daman, leading to the penalty under Section 114(iii) and Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Subsequently, the matter was taken to CESTAT, which quashed the order and remanded it for reconsideration following principles of natural justice.

3. The petitioner raised concerns regarding the delay in readjudication, as after 8 years of the CESTAT order, the Commissioner of Customs issued a fresh show cause notice for reconsideration. This delay prompted the petitioner to approach the court seeking resolution.

4. The petitioner's counsel relied on previous court decisions in similar cases, citing Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Kansal Texo Tube Pct. Ltd. vs. Union of India to support their arguments against the show cause notice.

5. The court, without delving into the merits of the case, directed the petitioner to utilize available remedies before the concerned authority, emphasizing the need for exhausting alternative legal options before approaching the court directly. The court highlighted the importance of allowing the concerned authority to decide the matter in accordance with the law.

6. Ultimately, the court disposed of both petitions, indicating that the petitioner should present their case before the appropriate authority using legal precedents cited, and allowing the authority to make a decision without interference from the court's disposal of the petitions.

---