Page 132 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

666 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

3.1 The stand taken by the adjudicating authorities aggrieved the peti-
tioner as, according to the petitioner, the authority has not followed the direc-
tions issued by the CESTAT. Therefore, any adjudication which continues with-
out complying with the directions issued by the CESTAT would amount to act-
ing without jurisdiction and authority. He, therefore, approached this court with
the afore-mentioned prayers in the present petition.
4. This Court while issuing notice on 29-11-2018 had granted ad interim
relief by granting liberty to the petitioner to seek adjournment in view of the fact
that this Court was in seisin of the matter and directed the authority to grant ad-
journment and post the matter only after the hearing of this petition. This direc-
tion has continued till date.
5. In response to the notice, the respondent No. 2 appeared and filed its
affidavit-in-reply denying all the averments and allegations. It has questioned
the maintainability of this petition on the ground that all the averments could be
raised before the authorities concerned. It is the stand of the respondents that the
documents, as sought for by the petitioner, were his own documents and hence,
their copies could not have been asked for. It is also the case of the respondent
that the petitioner could not have approached this Court on the ground of breach
of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the adjudication would be on the
strength of the available documents on the record. Moreover, the adjudication
process is not yet over and any culmination of such process shall be subject to
appeal under Section 129 of the Act. Hence, the petitioner could not have ap-
proached this Court under writ jurisdiction.
5.1 It is also the say of the respondent that the case can be taken up on
the strength of the documents available on record, which has been explained to
the petitioner. It was submitted that the show cause notice cannot be kept pend-
ing for an indefinite period and that the same shall have to be brought to its logi-
cal conclusion.
6. This Court has extensively heard Learned Advocate Mr. Paresh
Dave, who has urged that under the Rules, it is the duty of the respondent au-
thorities to preserve every document, on which assessment is made, for a period
of three years. Under the Rules, a duty is cast upon the Customs Appraiser to get
the bags opened and scrutinized under his supervision with a view to detain all
packets suspected to contain dutiable articles. The Rules also provide that the
parcel bills or letter mail bills and other documents on which the assessment is
made, shall remain in the custody of the Post Office, but the duplicates shall be
kept in the Customs Department for dealing with claims for refunds, etc.
6.1 It was submitted that the CESTAT has directed the respondents to
furnish the relevant documents before the assessment takes place and also to
complete the assessment within a specified time period. Now, when the re-
spondents have failed to comply with the said directions, they are required to
tender their explanation, as it amounts to grave violation of the order of the
CESTAT. The law prescribes that in case of any difficulty to complete the as-
sessment proceedings within the stipulated period, the appellate authority could
be approached seeking modification of its earlier order; however, nothing of this
sort has been done at the ends of the respondents. Instead, in clear violation of
the principles of natural justice, the respondents directed the petitioner-assessee
to complete final hearing of the adjudication, which is improper and illegal.
6.2 Learned Advocate has taken us through the various documents to
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  132