TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act; ii) The impugned order dated 7.10.2024 (Exhibit-Q); iii)The SCN dated 9.10.2022 (Exhibit-K) as the Respondent no. 2 has failed to conclude the proceedings as stipulated under Section 28(9)(b) of the Act, and therefore, the proceedings is deemed to be concluded as if no notice has been issued as provided in the second proviso to Section 28(9)(b) of the Act; b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the Respondents, their servants, subordinates and agents : i) to withdraw the Extension Order dated 30.9.2023 issued under the first proviso to Section 28(9)(b) of the Act; ii) To withdraw the Impugned Order dated 7.10.2024 (Exhibit-Q); iii)To withdraw the SCN dated 9.10.2022 (Exhibit-K), as the Respondent no. 2 has failed to conclude the proceedings as stipulated under Section 28(9)(b) of the Act, and therefore, the proceeding is deemed to be concluded as if no notice has been issued as provided in the second proviso to Section 28(9)(b) of the Act." 3. The primary grievance of the Petitioners is that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d provisional release of the primary cells upon fulfillment of certain conditions. Thereafter, between 26th May 2022 to 31st July 2022, various summons were issued to the proprietor of Petitioner no. 1 and to Petitioner no. 2 and various details and documents were requested to be submitted, and also it was mentioned therein that the period to show cause was extended in view of non-cooperation of the Petitioners in not participating in the adjudication proceedings. On 29th July 2022 and 31st July 2022 the proprietor of Petitioner no. 1 and the Petitioner no. 2 duly replied to the aforesaid summons and sought for an adjournment. Thereafter on 29th August 2022 the period to issue a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (`the Act' for short) was extended by a period of further two months under Section 110(2) of the Act, as the investigation was still on-going in the matter of Petitioners. 6. Thereafter, the Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 1814 of 2023 against the provisional release orders of 26th April 2022 and 8th June 2022 before this Court and by an order dated 19th September 2024, this Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the Additional ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Petitioners that a personal hearing has been scheduled in respect of the show cause notice referred to in the aforesaid notice on 4th October 2024 at 12.30 p.m. Thereafter, on 7th October 2024, without providing a personal hearing to the Petitioners, Respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order confirming the redetermined value of the imported goods and sought to recover the differential duty with respect to the imported primary cells as well as past 11 import shipments. Further, redemption fine and penalty was also imposed by way of the impugned order dated 7th October 2024. 8. It is in the backdrop of above facts that the Petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned ex-parte order dated 7th October 2024, have filed the present petition, which we proceed to decide. 9. Heard learned Dr. Sujay Kantawala with Mr. Anupam Dighe and Ms. Renita Alex for the Petitioners and Mr.S ubir Kumar with Mr. S.D. Deshpande, learned counsel for the Respondents. It is the contention of Dr.Kantawala appearing for the Petitioners that, the impugned order dated 7th October 2024 passed by Respondent no. 2 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no hearing was afford....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the officer authorised to grant such extension at least 30 days prior to time limit of six months or one year, as the case may be (time limits provided for adjudication of cases). Standing Order no. 12/2018 under Section 28 of the Act prescribes time limits for adjudication of cases and is marked to all the officers and adjudicating authorities while deciding the show cause notices. It was therefore submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside inasmuch as the same is passed contrary to the aforesaid standing order. 11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner next sought to place reliance on the additional affidavit filed by Petitioner no. 2 dated 24th February 2026 to bring on record that in an identical case of import of small primary cells by one Make India Impex, the Bill of Entry dated 4th November 2023 was filed before the JNCH Authority i.e. the same Port and an adjudication order dated 11th December 2024 was passed confirming the differential duty and imposing fine and penalty, which was challenged before the Respondent no. 2 i.e. the Commissioner of Customs, Appeals, JNCH, and by way of a well reasoned and speaking order dated 10th March 2025, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to. 3. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take kind note of the fact that the Order in Appeal refers to several Bills of Entry which are having the same prive of the same goods which shows that this is the normal commercial prevailing price in the international market and Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 clearly applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. In view of the clear-cut evidence placed before this Hon'ble Court, the impugned order-in-original dated 7.10.2024 deserves to be quashed and/or set aside and this Hon'ble Court be please to order and direct the Respondents to issue Detention Certificate for the entire period of illegal detention in the interest of justice. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-C is copy of order dated 5.2.2026 in the case of Santa Monica Farm Produce Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court." 12. Per contra, Mr. Subir Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondents opposed the reliefs as prayed for in the present petition, and submitted that a hearing notice dated 1st October 2024 was sent to the Petitioners prior to the passing of the impugned order and hence the same was not ....