Case Law Details
Dipali Electronics Pvt. Ltd Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
In our view, when Petitioner has been accused of having played role in the procurement of electronic systems and parts for manufacture of automated teller machines and Petitioner has been imposed penalty of Rs.Seventy Five Lakhs under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for its alleged role in the import effected by M/s. Hindustan Engineering Corporation, and Petitioner having challenged those findings in the Appeal, the CESTAT should have specifically dealt with the grounds of challenge raised by Petitioner, and should have given independent findings as regards role of the Petitioner. Not having done so, and in view of the fact that the averment of Petitioner in the Petition that Petitioner was not given notice of hearing, which has not been denied, in our view, in the interest of justice, Petitioner should be given hearing by CESTAT.
We are conscious of the fact that if a party does not turn up, it is not possible for CESTAT to go though the entire Appeal of the party, consider the grounds and pass a detailed order. At the same time, the CESTAT ought to have checked if a party has been properly served before proceeding to hear the matter and pass the order.
In the circumstances, impugned order dated 16th October 2018 (in the prayer clause it is wrongly mentioned as 16th October 2019) is quashed and set aside.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
