AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 730
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Finance Act, 1994, interest at the applicable rates under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and penalty of Rs. 42,74,690/-, 45,16,388/-, 42,60,539/-, 13,99,355/- under section 78(1) read with Section 78B(1)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each under section 77(1)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994 and further penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 respectively. 2.The petitioners claiming to be co-loaders of M/s. Blue Dart Express Limited, Salem, which is a courier agency, challenged the impugned orders in original, mainly by contending that the same came to be passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, since the respondent relied on certain materials collected fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e only in line with the statements made by the petitioners already. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioners in reply to the above said submission stated that in the reply to the show cause notices, they have stated that some documents in the possession of the Blue Dart will support the case of the petitioners. 6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 7.These writ petitions are filed against the orders in original. There is no dispute to the fact that before passing the impugned orders, the petitioners were served with show cause notice and they in turn had also given their reply. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were given an opportunity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that as per the vehicle agreement, they have supplied their vehicles on hire to Blue Dart Express Limited along with driver and that there is no consignment notes issued either by them or Blue Dart Express Limited for the transaction. 9.No doubt, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that in the reply to the show cause notices, they have disputed certain statements said to have been made, as extracted in the show cause notices. Needless to say that all these contentions have to be gone into and decided only by the Appellate Authority and therefore, this court, at this stage, is not inclined to go into such factual aspects of the matter in order to find out as to which category under which the petitioners would fall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rds, the original authority has extracted those letter and other invoices received from the Blue Dart in the impugned orders, since those documents are in line with the statements made by the petitioners already. Therefore, I find no violation of the principles of natural justice in these cases by not furnishing those documents to the petitioners, as such non furnishing is not causing any prejudice to the petitioners. In other words, in my considered view, even assuming that those documents are furnished to the petitioners, it is not going to alter their stand as taken by them earlier, in any manner. It is made very clear that these observations are made only for the purpose to hold that there is no violation of the principles of natural ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vate Limited rep. by its Director Sardarmal M.Chordia, Madras -vs- The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench, Madras and others reported in (2005) 2 MLJ 246(DB). 2) United Bank of India -vs- Satyawati Tondon and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110. 3) Raj Kumar Shivhare -vs- Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Another reported (2010) 4 SCC 772. 4) Metal Weld Electrodes -vs- CESTAT, Chennai reported in 2010(299) ELT 3 DB. 16.In the above decisions, it has been held that when an alternative remedy is available, more particularly, in the cases of fiscal nature, invoking of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not permissible.....