LAWS(CE)-2004-10-114

ASIAN PEROXIDES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, GUNTUR

Decided On October 01, 2004
ASIAN PEROXIDES LTD. Appellant
V/S
Commissioner Of Customs, Guntur Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise from O -I -O No. CE -2/2003, dated 10th March, 2003. This is an ex parte order passed by the Commissioner without granting an opportunity of hearing and rejecting the plea for an adjournment. Therefore, on fully hearing both the sides, the Bench is satisfied that this matter has to go back to the Commissioner for de novo consideration as the order is violative of principles of natural justice. The appellants had a very strong ground for seeking adjournment in the matter. The appellants contention was that they had made representation to the Commissioner to consider their plea made in the representation to the Commissioner. In the representation, the appellants had stated that the adjacent site which they had purchased and where they had shifted the imported goods, should also be declared as a Warehousing Station. The imported goods had been kept in the village Kotlapur. As the EOU in Kotlapur Village was in a low lying area vulnerable to inundation during rainy season frequently, therefore, they were forced to acquire 24 acres of land adjoining their factory and construct the masonry base for keeping the imported DG Set. As they found that the adjacent site to the factory where they had installed the DG Set fell within the Revenue jurisdiction of Nadendlavari Kandriga village, they applied to the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Guntur to declare the Nadendlavari Kandriga village as a Warehousing Station under Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962. The site plan already submitted clearly established that the site in question is adjoining to the EOU. It was also submitted that they had sent several reminders to the Commissioner to consider their application and pass an order, so that they could establish that there was no contravention of law in shifting the DG set to the adjoining site of the factory. However, the Commissioner had not taken up for consideration their application wherein they had prayed for declaring their premises at Nadendlavari Kandriga as a Bonded Warehousing Station under Section 9 of the Customs Act. It is stated that unless their application was considered, the Commissioner could not have proceeded to decide the issue in question, as their application was required to be disposed of after fair determination of the issue in question.

(2.) WE heard on this issue also. The learned SDR opposed the prayer and submitted that the Bench cannot give any direction to the Commissioner to dispose of the application of the appellant pertaining to the declaration of Nadendlavari Kandriga as a Bonded Warehousing Station.

(3.) ON our careful consideration, we find that the appellants had made an application in terms of law for declaring their adjacent site as a Bonded Warehousing Station under Section 9 of the Customs Act. The adjudicating authority was seized of this matter and he is the authority who should have considered their application. The Commissioner in his administrative capacity not having taken up that matter but having issued show cause notice and has adjudicated the matter without even granting a personal hearing has certainly violated the principles of natural justice. The Commissioner has not dealt with the pleas pertaining to their application pending before him for declaring the said village as a Bonded Warehouse Station. We are of the considered opinion that the Commissioner should consider their application and proceed and thereafter decide this matter afresh after granting a fresh hearing to the appellants in the matter. The matter shall be adjudicated within a period of four months as the Revenue involved is very huge in the matter and the matter has been pending too long before the Commissioner. The impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner for de novo consideration in the terms stated supra.