2004 (8) TMI 111

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2.The brief case of the petitioner is that the petitioner imported the Laser Press Facsimile equipment in May 1984 and the same was assessed by the Assistant Collector, Customs as an item chargeable to duty under Customs Tariff Heading 84.35 and the petitioner paid the duty of Rs. 80,59,513.80. But according to the Assistant Collector, the above equipment is in the nature of transmission and the reception apparatus and wireless equipment and hence decided to assess the goods under item 85.15 CTA read with 68 CET since the equipment imported was capable of working both on carrier lines and on wireless transmission and that there was a short levy of duty to the extent of Rs. 38,07,255/- towards the difference between the original assessmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ich is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5.The learned Addl. Solicitor General appearing for the respondents contended that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner fixing the date of hearing on 12-8-1985. Thereafter by letter dated 14-8-1985 the date of hearing was fixed on 29-8-1985. In that letter it is specifically stated that adequate time was granted to the petitioner postponing the date of personal hearing. Therefore, the petitioner was requested to appear for personal hearing on 29-8-1985, failing which the case would be decided based on merits without further notice. Relying upon this, the learned Solicitor General has also state that even earlier it....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... failure to comply with the order, would give way so passing of orders on merit without any further notice. He further submits that after the disposal of the writ petitions the petitioner should have submitted his representation to the show cause notice. But he remained silent even after the writ petitions were dismissed. In these circumstances, the learned Addl. Solicitor General contended that there is no ground to quash the impugned order and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. On the other hand, there is laches on the part of the petitioner and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7.In reply to the arguments, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy submits that a perusal of the impugned orde....