2026 (9) TMI 106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ia, seeks issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the Order dated 28.03.2025 [hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order'] passed by the Central Government (CG)/Respondent No. 1 under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 [hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1962'], in the Revision Applications (RA) preferred by the Petitioners against the Order-in-Appeal (OIA) dated 25.02.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 2. 2. In substance, it is the case of the Petitioners that while passing the Impugned Order, the Revisional Authority did not abide by the principles of natural justice, and as such, the decision rendered thereby is required to be set-aside. 3. Pithily put, the brief facts leading to the filing of the present Petition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....concealment, as well as imposed a penalty of Rs. 54,56,000/- upon them. 6. Aggrieved by the manner in which the SCN proceedings have been conducted, the Petitioners had filed a writ petition before this Court bearing W.P.(C) No. 10197/2018 captioned Shakti Mehta & Ors. v Commissioner of Customs seeking remand for fresh adjudication with an effective opportunity of representation. However, this Court declined to interfere, directing the Petitioners to approach the Appellate Authority, seeking cross examination. 7. Thereafter, the Petitioners preferred appeals before the Respondent No. 2, however, the same came to be rejected vide common OIA dated 25.02.2022. Aggrieved, the Petitioners instituted four distinct RAs, before CG mainly on t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nted time, but since the Ld. Additional Secretary (LAS), was engaged elsewhere, he did not join. 8.5 Learned counsel, against the aforesaid background, argued that the Impugned Order is rendered null, since the Petitioners were denied an essential facet of natural justice. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 9. Per contra, learned counsel representing the Respondents, has made the following submissions: 9.1 It is contended that due process was followed during the course of proceedings. It is his case that the Petitioners were granted four opportunities of personal hearing, on 18.09.2024, 27.09.2024, 09.10.2024, and 06.12.2024. However, on first three occasions none appeared on their behalf. 9.2 It is submitted that upon c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ged by the Petitioners is denial of personal hearing while deciding RA, leading to violation of the principles of natural justice, however, upon perusal of record this ground does not survive scrutiny. 12. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners were afforded not one but four separate opportunities of personal hearing between September 2024 and December 2024. On three of those occasions, 18.09.2024, 27.09.2024 and 09.10.2024, none appeared on their behalf, adjournments having been sought and granted as a matter of indulgence rather than of right. 13. Nevertheless, when a final opportunity was fixed for 06.12.2024, the CG accommodated the Petitioners' shifting preferences as to mode and timing, ultimately fixing virtual hearings betw....