2022 (1) TMI 472 - HC - Customs

Court quashes order for lack of procedural fairness, remits for speaking order. Petitioner granted personal hearing.

The Court found that the respondent violated procedural fairness by passing the impugned order without allowing the petitioner sufficient opportunity to ... Service of SCN - It is the case of the petitioner that the notice itself was received at the first date fixed for personal hearing - Violation of principles of natural justice - Board Circular dated 10.03.2017 bearing Circular No.1053/2/2017-CX (F.No.96/1/2017-CX.I) - HELD THAT:- The procedure adopted in fixing the personal hearing immediately after issuance of the show cause notice without giving adequate time to the petitioner to reply, itself shows that the respondent was in a hurry to pass orders mechanically. Indeed the order passed by the respondent is mechanical as there is no discussion - the procedure adopted by the respondent is clearly contrary to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise & Customs vide Circular No.1053/2/2017-CX, dated 10.03.2017. The case is remitted back to the respondent to pass speaking order within a period of four week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed by way of remand. Issues:Violation of procedural fairness in passing the impugned order without adequate opportunity for the petitioner to reply.Analysis:The petitioner received a Show Cause Notice with a fixed date for a hearing, which was the first date itself. The petitioner submitted an interim reply on 30.09.2021 and requested more time to respond. However, the respondent passed the impugned order without granting sufficient opportunity for the petitioner to reply fully. The petitioner later submitted a final reply on 11.10.2021, unaware of the impugned order.The impugned order was challenged as being contrary to Paragraph 14.3 of the Board Circular dated 10.03.2017. The Circular mandates giving a fair opportunity for a reply and holding at least three personal hearings with intervals for the noticee to be heard adequately. The respondent's immediate fixation of a personal hearing after issuing the notice without allowing sufficient time for the petitioner to respond indicated a mechanical approach in passing the order.The impugned order lacked a detailed discussion and appeared to be a mechanical decision. The judgment highlighted the respondent's failure to adhere to the Circular's guidelines, leading to the quashing of the order. The Court directed the matter to be remitted back to the respondent for a speaking order within four weeks, considering the petitioner's interim and final replies. The petitioner was also granted an opportunity for a personal hearing in compliance with procedural fairness.In conclusion, the Writ Petition was disposed of with the above directions, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to established guidelines in administrative decisions.