Page 131 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] LILARAM ARJANDAS ASUDANI v. UNION OF INDIA 665

and the petitioner was advised to furnish final reply to the show cause notice
vide letter dated 5-10-2006. The petitioner filed his written submissions on 26-10-
2006 and raised a contention about breach of the principles of natural justice.
2.6 The Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad, thereafter, passed an
order dated 20-12-2006 raising a demand for the differential customs duty for the
goods contained in 258 parcels, severally and jointly from the petitioner and oth-
ers, along with interest and penalty.
2.7 Being aggrieved, the petitioner and others approached the Cus-
toms, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad
(hereinafter referred to as “the CESTAT”). Vide judgment and order dated 20-1-
2017, the CESTAT held that there was breach of the principles of natural justice
as the petitioner was not provided with the relevant documents so that he could
get an opportunity to defend himself and accordingly, remanded the matter to
the Commissioner (Customs), Ahmedabad for adjudication afresh within a peri-
od of four months from the date of receipt of the order, after giving due oppor-
tunity of hearing and submission of evidence to the petitioner. It is the case of the
petitioner that pursuant to the order of remand passed by the CESTAT, on 20-1-
2017 the petitioner was given a personal hearing by the respondent No. 2 on 20-
1-2017. However, no documents as directed by the CESTAT were supplied to the
petitioner.
3. The petitioner had made a request to the respondent No. 2 to supply
copies of relevant documents in relation to the 122 consignments. Thereupon, the
Assistant Commissioner of Customs from the Office of the respondent No. 2
wrote a letter dated 19-12-2017 to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Pre-
ventive) asking to provide copies of (i) import declarations (ii) import invoices
(iii) assessment sheets/memos and (iv) parcel bills to the petitioners’ advocate.
Couple of communications were addressed by the petitioner to the Customs De-
partment (Preventive Section) after receipt of the communication dated 19-12-
2017. However, it is lamented that no response was given by the concerned offic-
ers. A personal hearing was also fixed, but no effective hearing was conducted.
Eventually, the petitioner’s advocate also visited the Office of the Assistant
Commissioner of Customs (O&A) for inspection of the files and collected copies
of the documents vide letter dated 26-7-2018. The visit on 8-8-2018, according to
the petitioner, did not yield much result, as the files did not contain any of the
relevant documents and copies of only eight declaration forms filed by the peti-
tioner for a few of the imported consignments were handed over to the Learned
Advocate. Those eight declaration forms also did not bear any stamp or signa-
ture of the Customs Department. According to the petitioner, the said documents
were virtually blank forms not at all relevant for the purpose of assessment of
duties on the imported goods. Therefore, a communication dated 9-8-2018 was
addressed by the Learned Advocate for the petitioner to the Office of respondent
No. 2, wherein the attention of the Department was drawn to the directions is-
sued by the CESTAT for its compliance; however, to no avail. A further corre-
spondence followed on 19-9-2018. A personal hearing was fixed on 25-10-2018,
which was rescheduled for 30-10-2018. The petitioner approached respondent
No. 2 on 30-10-2018 through its advocate. On 15-11-2018 the Superintendent of
Customs from the Office of the respondent No. 2 indicated that the petitioner
should file final submissions without any delay as all the available documents
had been supplied by their Office and the case would be taken up for final adju-
dication.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  131