Page 133 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] LILARAM ARJANDAS ASUDANI v. UNION OF INDIA 667

point out that the set of four documents, in relation to 122 consignments that
were imported, have not been furnished by the respondents. The reason given by
the respondents for non-supply of the said documents is that they have not pre-
served the same. If that be so, the respondents could not proceed with the as-
sessment. He has urged that inquiry in this case has started before the comple-
tion of three years and therefore, it was the duty on the part of the respondents to
serve those documents.
7. Per contra, Mr. Parth Bhatt, Learned Senior Standing Counsel appear-
ing for the respondents, has urged that this Court would have no jurisdiction to
issue the writ of prohibition in the given set of facts. It was submitted that it is
only when the authority concerned has no jurisdiction and it continues to exer-
cise the powers that such writ could be exercised. Here is a case where the au-
thority concerned is empowered to assess the net invoiced bills and therefore, it
cannot be said that it is acting without jurisdiction.
7.1 It was submitted that all contentions which have been raised in re-
spect of the breach of the principles of natural justice could be raised before the
concerned authority and an appeal has also been provided under Section 129 of
the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the order passed
by such authority. The petitioner could raise every defence before the authority
concerned instead of agitating the same before this Court.
7.2 Learned Standing Counsel urged that differential duty is required
to be assessed on the imported goods inasmuch as different parts had been im-
ported and an attempt has been made to hoodwink the respondent-authority.
The respondent authority has clarified that those documents, which were not
provided to the petitioner, would not be taken into consideration at the time of
assessment. It was, therefore, prayed that the present petition deserves to be
dismissed.
8. Having heard the Learned Advocates for the respective parties and
having carefully examined the documents on record, the Court notices that the
question that arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether the respond-
ent No. 2 could be permitted to conclude the assessment, without complying
with the directions issued by the CESTAT on 20-1-2017. It is an undisputed fact
that the order-in-original dated 20-12-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Cus-
toms, Ahmedabad was in relation to the “declared value” of imported goods.
The said authority confirmed the differential customs duty on the imported
goods at Rs. 34,45,624/- and also directed that the same be recovered severally
and jointly from the petitioner and seven other Noticees. The authority also im-
posed penalty of similar amount of Rs. 34,45,624/- on the petitioner and penalty
of Rs. 5,00,000/- on each of the seven Noticees.
9. The CESTAT took note of the fact that the duty liability imposed by
the respondent-authority was jointly and severally on eight individuals. It was of
the firm opinion that no liability could be imposed on a group of persons jointly
and severally. While so concluding, the CESTAT relied upon a decision of its an-
other Bench at Delhi, wherein it was held that the adjudicating authority was not
justified in imposing duty jointly and severally on the Noticees. The CESTAT
took note of the fact that relevant documents were not furnished by the respond-
ents to the petitioner and other Noticees for their defence and accordingly, held
that principles of natural justice demanded that the Noticees have to be provided
with the relevant documents/evidences so that they could get an opportunity to
defend themselves.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  133