Page 136 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

670 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
of assessment and the assessee concerned cannot be sent from pillar to post, par-
ticularly, on the very issue on which the challenge has been made.
15. This Court is conscious of the fact that the differential duty imposed
upon the present petitioner and six other Noticees is huge. The matter is quite
old and involves a long drawn legal battle, which has continued till date. The
final adjudication could not be made in the wake of this challenge and the direc-
tions issued by the CESTAT. However, that also cannot be a ground for the
Court to permit breach of the principles of natural justice.
16. It is not only about the grant of an opportunity of being heard to the
party concerned, but of complying with the principles of natural justice, which
includes the furnishing of relevant documents also, which is vital for the purpose
of adjudication. Considering the facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that
the communication dated 15-11-2018 addressed to the advocate for the petitioner
by the Office of the respondent No. 2 stating that in case of non-furnishing of
final submissions by the petitioner before 30-11-2018, the case shall be proceeded
for final adjudication, deserves indulgence.
17. This Court is conscious of the fact that the exercise of powers for the
issuance of a Writ of Prohibition is to be used very sparingly. This is not a case
where the respondent No. 2 authority is not having the powers to make an as-
sessment under the Act. However, the issue is with regard to non-supply of doc-
uments, despite the directions issued by the CESTAT. In this background, the
action of the respondent No. 2 authority seeking to proceed with the assessment
of the petitioner, without complying with the directions issued by the CESTAT in
its order dated 20-1-2017, would entail to the exercise of the powers by this court
since the authority, which, otherwise has the powers, has not taken any steps in
compliance of the directions issued by the CESTAT. Hence, the communication
dated 15-11-2018 issued by the Office of the respondent No. 2 deserves to be
quashed and set aside and appropriate directions are required to be issued to the
respondent No. 2.
18. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned commu-
nication dated 15-11-2018 addressed to the Learned Advocate for the petitioner
by the Office of the respondent No. 2 herein is quashed and set aside. The re-
spondent No. 2 authority is directed to furnish the documents, as mandated by
the CESTAT in its order dated 20-1-2017, viz. (i) Import Declarations (ii) Import
Invoices (iii) Assessment sheets/memos and (iv) Parcel bills, to the petitioner
within a period of Four Weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order. In
the event of its inability to furnish the said documents to the petitioner, the re-
spondent No. 2 authority shall approach the CESTAT seeking necessary modifi-
cation of its order dated 20-1-2017. Till the final outcome of the application that
may be made by the respondent No. 2 before the CESTAT seeking modification
of its earlier order dated 20-1-2017, the respondent No. 2 authority is restrained
from proceeding further with the adjudication of the show cause notice dated
5-5-2006. It shall be open to the petitioner to raise all contentions in the applica-
tion seeking modification; except the plea regarding delay as the proceedings
were pending before this Court. It is made clear that this Court has not entered
into the merits of the case and that the CESTAT shall decide any such application
that may be filed by the respondent No. 2 being uninfluenced by the observa-
tions made in this order and shall decide the same independently.
_______
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  136