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>Petition partly granted, communication quashed. Respondents restrained pending compliance. Upholding appellate authority directions.</h1> <h3>Lilaram Arjandas Asudani Versus Union Of India</h3> Lilaram Arjandas Asudani Versus Union Of India - 2020 (372) E.L.T. 663 (Guj.) Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Customs to conduct adjudication.2. Compliance with CESTAT's directions.3. Breach of principles of natural justice.4. Non-supply of relevant documents to the petitioner.5. Validity of the show cause notice and subsequent proceedings.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Customs to Conduct Adjudication:The petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad from adjudicating the show cause notice dated 05.05.2006. The petitioner argued that the adjudication was without jurisdiction due to non-compliance with CESTAT's directions. The court, however, noted that the authority concerned was empowered to assess the net invoiced bills and thus had jurisdiction.2. Compliance with CESTAT's Directions:The CESTAT had remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Customs for fresh adjudication with specific directions to provide relevant documents to the petitioner. The court found that the respondents failed to comply with these directions, as they did not provide all the required documents, which was in clear violation of the CESTAT's order. The court emphasized that the respondents should have either complied with the directions or sought modification from the CESTAT.3. Breach of Principles of Natural Justice:The petitioner contended that the principles of natural justice were breached as relevant documents were not provided, preventing a fair defense. The court agreed, noting that the failure to furnish documents violated natural justice principles. The court highlighted that the respondents' insistence on proceeding without providing the documents or seeking modification from the CESTAT was improper.4. Non-supply of Relevant Documents to the Petitioner:The petitioner repeatedly requested documents such as import declarations, import invoices, assessment sheets, and parcel bills, which were not provided. The court found that the respondents admitted to not supplying all the documents as directed by the CESTAT. The court held that the respondents should have either provided the documents or sought modification from the CESTAT if they were unable to comply.5. Validity of the Show Cause Notice and Subsequent Proceedings:The court examined whether the adjudication could proceed without complying with the CESTAT's directions. It concluded that the respondents' actions were in violation of the CESTAT's order and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court quashed the communication dated 15.11.2018 and directed the respondents to provide the required documents within four weeks or seek modification from the CESTAT.Conclusion:The court partly allowed the petition, quashing the communication dated 15.11.2018 and restraining the respondents from proceeding with the adjudication until compliance with the CESTAT's directions or obtaining a modification. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to appellate authority directions and upholding principles of natural justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
