Page 134 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

668 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

10. Considering all these aspects, the CESTAT remanded the matter to
the respondent-authority for adjudication afresh, with the direction that the pro-
cess shall be completed within four months from the date of receipt of the order
and after giving necessary opportunity of personal hearing and submission of
evidence to the petitioner. This Court finds that the first personal hearing took
place after about 10 months, which was in November, 2017. Prior to this hearing,
a communication was addressed to the respondent No. 2 on 4-11-2017, whereby
the authority concerned was reminded of the order passed by the CESTAT and a
request was made for supplying the relevant documents.
10.1 It appears that on 7-11-2017, when the hearing took place, nothing
happened. Therefore, communication dated 19-12-2017 was addressed to the As-
sistant Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) and Assistant Commissioner of
Customs (F.P.O.) by the Office of the respondent No. 2, wherein a mention was
made of the fact that a fresh preliminary hearing was held on 7-11-2017 and the
Learned Advocate appearing for the assessee, i.e. the petitioner, had sought doc-
uments.
10.2 The petitioner filed his Written Submissions, wherein also, a re-
quest was made to supply copies of the declarations, invoices, assessment sheets
and parcel bills. However, it appears that the said request was not acceded to.
10.3 Another communication dated 9-8-2018 was addressed to the
Principal Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad reiterating the request, where-
in it was stated pursuant to the earlier letter dated 4-11-2017 made on behalf of
the Learned Advocate for the petitioner and others, a letter was addressed by the
Assistant Commissioner (O&A) requesting the petitioner to inspect the files and
collect photocopies of the required documents. Accordingly, the advocate visited
the Preventive Section in the Customs House on 8-8-2018; but, only eight docu-
ments, which were “Declaration Forms”, were shown to the advocate from the
file of the case and the copies thereof, were supplied to the advocate.
10.4 It was urged that all the copies of 122 consignments, as were re-
quested by the petitioner and were directed to be handed over to the petitioner
by the CESTAT in its order dated 20-1-2017, have so far not been provided to the
petitioner. On 10-9-2018 a communication was addressed by the Learned Advo-
cate for the petitioner to the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad
reiterating the request to furnish all relevant documents and evidence to the peti-
tioner, as directed by the CESTAT. Yet, another reminder was sent to the Princi-
pal Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad in the form of communication dated
30-10-2018. On 15-11-2018 the Superintendent from the Office of the respondent
No. 2 addressed a communication to the Learned Advocate for the petitioner
stating that as far as the invoices and other like documents are concerned, the
same being petitioners’ own documents, could be had from him and that all
available documents, including certain declarations, have been supplied by the
Office to the petitioner.
11. Evidently, in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.
2, it has been admitted that all documents, as were directed by the CESTAT in its
order dated 20-1-2017, have not been supplied to the petitioner. However, the
respondent No. 2 has taken the stand that the petitioner would not only be hav-
ing the documents as sought for by him, but the authority would not take into
consideration any of those document/s at the time of making assessment.
12. In the opinion of this Court, the stand taken by the respondents is in
clear violation of the directions issued by the CESTAT. The CESTAT, after due
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  134