Page 137 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA 671

2020 (372) E.L.T. 671 (Raj.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
Mohammad Rafiq, ACJ. and Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.
MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12600 of 2018, decided on 1-5-2019
Revision - Notice to assessee of petition filed by Department sent to
wrong address - Assessee also filing revision of same appellate order - Neces-
sary to decide cross-appeal/cross-revision together though separately filed
against common order - Revisional authority required to decide both revision
petitions together after notice to assessee on his correct address - Ex parte order
in revision petition filed by Department set aside - Section 129DD of Customs
Act, 1962. [paras 5, 6, 7]
Matter remanded
CASES CITED
Expo-Fyn Electricals & Electronics v. Commissioner — 2018 (8) G.S.T.L. 160 (Raj.)
— Referred ......................................................................................................................................... [Para 3]
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. International Security & Intelligence Agency Ltd.
— (2004) 3 SCC 250 — Referred .................................................................................................... [Para 3]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Sameer Jain with Daksh Pareek and Arjun
Singh, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Vartika Mehra for Shri Sandeep Pathak, for the
Respondent.
[Order per : Mohammad Rafiq, ACJ.]. - This writ petition has been pre-
ferred by Manoj Kumar Sharma, who is non-resident Indian and presently hav-
ing residence in Dubai, assailing the order dated 13-4-2018 passed by revisional
authority i.e. Government of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance.
2. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments
on two points. One is that under challenge before the revisional authority was
the order dated 23-2-2015 passed by the Commissioner, Customs and Central
Excise (Appeal), Jaipur (in short “the appellate authority”). The revision petition
filed by the Revenue has been decided by the impugned order dated 13-4-2018
against the assessee ex parte. As per the impugned order, the matter was fixed for
personal hearing on 9-3-2018 and 4-4-2018. The revisional authority has in para 3
of the impugned order also recorded that no one appeared for the applicant or
the respondent for personal hearing in any of these dates. The copy of the afore-
said order has been forwarded to the petitioner at his incorrect Sikar address
namely Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, 2/1203, Sheikh Pura Mohalla, Ward No. 26,
Sikar, Rajasthan-332001 whereas the correct address of the petitioner is Mahesh
Kumar Sharma S/o Bhagirath Sharma C/o Dr. Rajesh Sharma Pioneer Hospital
Near Tapariya Bagichi Station Road, Sikar (Raj.). It is this address which the peti-
tioner has given in original by the appellate authority in the order dated 24-2-
2015 and challenged before the revisional authority.
3. Learned Counsel argued that the order aforesaid was not only chal-
lenged by the petitioner but was also challenged by the revenue in separate revi-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  137