2018 (5) TMI 454

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of Dyed Polyester Woven Fabric by the writ petitioner through Bill of Entry No.5485068 dated 16.12.2011. According to the revenue, the writ petitioner undervalued the goods to the extent of 75%. Thus, a show cause notice was issued on .......07.2012. The writ petitioner made some replies on 09.09.2012, 27.09.2014, 24.10.2012 and 16.10.2012. A personal hearing was also held on 30.12.2013, on which day, the petitioner presented a written submission dated 12.12.2013. Thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority, after discussing all the facts and circumstances and also by giving reason as to why he is denying to the petitioner the chance of cross-examination all officers and mahazer witnesses, passed an order of adjudication, impugned in the writ ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....udge that the Writ Petitioner has not submitted any explanation to the show-cause notice and therefore, he is not entitled to cross-examine any witness. 5.The learned Judge, after finding that the Petitioner did not even chose to submit his explanation to the show-cause notice, held that he is not entitled to cross-examine any witness. The learned Judge has also pointed out that the Petitioner would be in a position to cross-examine the witnesses only to substantiate the stand taken in the reply to show-cause notice and on the other hand, the Petitioner having not filed any reply to the show-cause notice, cannot seek for cross-examination of the witnesses. The learned Judge after holding that the Petitioner/appellant is not entitled to c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alue of the subject-matter goods, imported under the subject-matter Bill of Entry and consequently ordered payment of duty of Rs. 50,95,774/- on the re-determined value. The Adjudicating Authority also imposed penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs each, on the proprietor of the firm as well on another person. There is no dispute to the fact that order in original was passed after issuing show-cause notice and also after affording an opportunity of personal hearing and after discussion of all the facts and circumstances. There is no dispute to the fact that the relevant statute namely the Customs Act provides a statutory appellate remedy against the impugned order in original, before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 129....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sustainable. In this case, the Adjudicating Authority has pointed out that no such contention was raised in the reply to the show-cause notice as well as in the written submission made during the personal hearing. However, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that there are sufficient particulars available in the replies and written submissions. We are refraining ourselves from looking into those material documents at this stage, as we find that all these factual contentions have to be gone into, considered and decided by the next fact finding authority namely, the appellate Tribunal, more particularly, when there are disputed questions of facts. Whether the contentions raised by the Petitioner before Adjudicating Authority....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xamine any witness is also left open to be agitated before the appellate authority. 12.On the question of maintainability of the writ petition, it is to be noted that in this case, the Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order admittedly after issuing the show cause notice and also affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the Adjudicating Authority violated the principles of natural justice. However, it is claimed by the writ petitioner that not giving an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses also amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The question as to why such opportunity was not given to the petitioner, certainly is not a simple question of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. 38. A writ court seldom interferes with the orders passed by such authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions, unless there is serious procedural illegality or irregularity or they have acted in excess of their jurisdiction........." 13.It is well settled that in a case involving fiscal nature, availing of statutory appellate remedy has to be first exhausted and hence, the party cannot come to this Court directly and file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This view is already expressed in very many decisions out of which we quote few decisions which are as follows:- "1) M/s.Nivaram Pharma Private Limited rep.by its Director Sardarmal M.Chordia, Mad....