BOTHRA INTERNATIONAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, SHILLONG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only issue in this Appeal is whether natural justice was followed and the report obtained from Central Food Laboratory was confronted to the Appellant for rebuttal. Neither the Order of Adjudication nor the Appellate Order discloses that such a process of justice was followed. It appears from the Appeal folder that original adjudication was completed against the Appellant holding that the goods imported were not in conformity with the standard prescribed under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It was also held that the Appellant having suffered financial loss no penalty was imposable. Also it was held that the Appellant is entitled to a refund of Rs. 5,813/ - (Rupees Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirteen only). Such an Adjudication Order was passed on 4 -4 -2005. Record also reveals that when the Adjudicating Authority has signed the Order on 4 -4 -2005 that was issued on 15 -3 -2005. This shows a gross irregularity on the part of the Revenue Authorities in dealing with the matter of adjudication very casually. After the Order of Adjudication was passed the same was subject matter of review by the learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who allowed the Review Application filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Dhubri. After that Review Order was passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the matter was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner who imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/ - (Rupees Five Thousand only) on the Appellant and directed for appropriation of the amount of Rs. 5,813/ - (Rupees Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirteen only) already suffered by the Appellant towards Customs Duty and Education Cess. Such re -adjudication Order was passed on 29 -1 -2007. This re -adjudication was subject matter of Appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Customs who disposed the Appeal on 11 -9 -2007 dropping the penalty but rest of Order -in -Original was upheld. This entire process throws light to come to a conclusion that the Appellate Authority became judge of his own cause who passed the Review Order and upon re -adjudication he set over his judgment as an Appellate Authority and passed the Order on 11 -9 -2007.

(2.) LEARNED Departmental Representative (SDR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue supported the Order of the Authority below. He submits that the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals) was in respect of penalty, but not in respect of refund.

(3.) HEARD both sides and perused the record.