RIDDHI SIDDHI COLLECTION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the request of the parties, the petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

(2.) This Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 13th July, 2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs respondent no.2 under the Customs Act, 1962 (for sake of brevity "the Act"). The impugned order dated 13th July, 2018 has confirmed the show cause notice dated 15th December, 2016 demanding custom duty under section 28 of the Act. Besides the impugned order dated 13th July 2018 also imposes penalty and confiscates the imported goods with option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine under Section 125 of the Act.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is, the impugned order dated 13th July, 2018 passed by respondent no.2, Commissioner of Customs is an order passed in breach of principals of natural justice. This only for the reason that the show cause notice dated 15th December, 2016 as served upon the petitioner was incomplete, inasmuch as annexture 'A' and 'B' to the show cause notice were not annexed nor accompanied with the show cause notice as served upon the petitioner. The petitioner time and again requested for copies of annexture 'A' and 'B' to the show cause notice as both these annextures were an integral part of the show cause notice as they are statements computing the demand. Annextures 'A' and 'B' were made available to the petitioner only on 4th June, 2018 while fixing the personal hearing of the show cause notice dated 15th December, 2016 on 27th June 2018. The petitioner by letter dated 26th June, 2018 requested the Commissioner to grant four weeks' time so as to file appropriate reply to the show cause notice dated 15th December, 2016 and thereafter, fix a personal hearing. Notwithstanding the aforesaid request respondent no.2 confirmed the show cause notice by order dated 13th July, 2018 without waiting for the petitioner's reply or even hearing the petitioner. Thus, it is prayed that this Court should in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction entertain the petition.