1990 (3) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... should not be made. They were also informed that differential duty will have to be paid by them if it is held that the Notification No. 114/80-(Cus.) is not applicable. The petitioners submitted a representation in which inter alia they stated that when just like the petitioners, several other persons had imported identical machineries from abroad and when all these imports were given the benefit of the Notification No. 114/80(Cus.) and those cases were not reopened, there is absolutely no justification for singling out the petitioners for hostile treatment. In their letter dated 15-11-1988, the petitioners requested the respondent who issued the show cause notice to summon the relevant file from the concerned assessing officers who cleare....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ested the respondent to dispose of the application filed by them on 15-11-1988 before proceeding further in the matter. They concluded that letter by stating as follows: "The respondents submit that unless the Collector disposes of the application under Section 108 one way or the other we will be constrained to move the Hon'ble High Court by way of appropriate proceedings. At a time convenient to you we would like a hearing on the submissions made in this letter. Kindly give us a date for the same before taking any proceedings." Obviously, the petitioners wanted to convince the respondent that their application filed on 15-11-1988 merits favourable disposal and it is for that purpose they prayed for a hearing to be given before the re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itioners ex parte and render a finding against them which the petitioners state, is not fair. 2. In answer to the above submission, Mr. P. Narasimhan, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel would submit that the letter for adjournment dated 10-2-1989 purported to have been sent along with the representation dated 15-2-1989 was not in fact received in the office of the Collector. He would submit that the only representation received from the petitioners was dated 15-2-1989 in which the petitioners have taken a stand that orders should be made to their earlier representation dated 15-11-1988 and under law, the respondent is not bound to dispose of the earlier representation by independent proceedings and therefore the adjudicat....