Page 230 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

620 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

(ii) Chellapalam Manivannan v. Jt. Secretary, Min. of Finance (DOR), New
Delhi [2018 (9) TMI 459 - Madras High Court = 2018 (361) E.L.T. 287
(Mad.)]
(iii) LNS Impex v. Office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Hydera-
bad and Another [2019 (5) TMI 832 - Telangana and Andhra Pradesh
High Court = 2019 (367) E.L.T. 700 (Telangana)].
7.1 After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of
the material on record, I find that the only issue involved in the present case is
whether the impugned goods have been legally mined and whether the appel-
lants have produced sufficient documents to prove the same. The Department
entertained the view that the impugned goods are prohibited as the appellant
has not produced the said certificate of legally mined minerals. The show cause
notice was issued to the appellant on 26-7-2019 proposing to confiscate the goods
on the ground that they are not legally mined minerals and are prohibited goods.
In the show cause notice, 30 days time has been given as observed in para 24 of
the show cause notice to file the reply. But the Commissioner passed the im-
pugned order on the next day itself i.e. 27-7-2019 without affording an oppor-
tunity of filing the reply to the show cause notice by the appellant. The Commis-
sioner has observed in the impugned order that the Senior Manager of the com-
pany Shri Shakti Ganapathy appeared for personal hearing on 27-7-2019 and
filed written submissions whereas filing of the written submissions has been cat-
egorically denied by the Counsel for the appellant, it appears strange as to how
the hearing on 27-7-2019 was considered by the Commissioner to be a proper
opportunity of hearing when the Commissioner himself has given 30 days time
to file reply to the show cause notice. In fact, the Commissioner has wrongly ob-
served in the impugned order that written submissions have been filed whereas
no written submission have been filed on 27-7-2019 on which the impugned or-
der itself has been passed. It appears that the Commissioner has no regard for the
principles of natural justice. The opportunity of proper hearing has to be accord-
ed to the appellant against whom the order of absolute confiscation has been
passed on the next day of the issue of show cause notice and that too without
taking proper reply to the show cause notice and without affording proper op-
portunity of hearing to the appellant. The manner and the speed with which the
impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner without affording ade-
quate opportunity to the appellant to file the reply to the show cause notice is in
complete violation of the principles of natural justice.
7.2 Further I find that the appellant have produced plethora of docu-
ments to show that the impugned goods are legally mined minerals, purchased
by them from M/s. Transworld Garnet India (P) Ltd., which is having a mining
licence holder in Andhra Prdesh and transport permits issued by the Department
of Mines & Geology of the State of Andhra Pradesh. These documents have been
submitted before the Commissioner but he did not consider them at all and has
relied upon only a Trade Facility Circular issued by the Cochin Customs House
dated 22-12-2016 and also the Circular issued by the State of Tamil Nadu where
the unit of the appellant is located. Further I find that once the appellant has
produced the legally mined minerals certificate along with other documents
which have also been filed along with the appeal before the Tribunal but the
same have not been considered at all and the instructions issued subsequent to
the filing of the shipping bills has been considered for passing of the impugned
order absolutely confiscating the impugned goods. I am unable to appreciate that
how the Commissioner is insisting for the certificate of legally mined minerals
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  230