Judgment:
Ashok Jindal:
The appellants have filed these appeals along with stay applications.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellant, namely, Shri Ashwini B Singhal has also filed an appeal against the impugned order by way of appeal No. C/268/2012 wherein the matter has been adjourned for 26/06/2012.
3. As the captioned appeal and the appeal filed by Shri Ashwini B Singhal are arising out of the same order, therefore, we called the appeal of Shri Ashwini B Singhal for listing today itself along with appeal of B.N. Industries. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to place the appeal No. C/268/2012 before us today itself for disposal.4. Without going into the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it is a case of under valuation of imported goods and during the adjudication they have paid an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs and the same may be treated as sufficient in compliance to the provisions of Sections 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. He further submitted that the impugned order deserves no merits and liable to be set aside on the ground that there is a violation of principles of natural justice and due to the change of the adjudicating authority no proper hearing was granted to the appellants.
5. Heard the learned counsel and perused the records. On perusal of the records we find that after change in the adjudicating authority a personal hearing was granted on 01/12/2011. But on that date the appellant sought adjournment vide letter dated 29/11/2011 with a request that the matter may be heard afresh in January 2012. The said request of the appellant was turned down on the ground that the hearing has already been granted on earlier occasions.
6. We have seen in the order itself that after the change in the adjudicating authority only one hearing was granted on 01/12/2011, on which date the appellant sought adjournment and the same was turned down. We find that there is a gross violation of principles of natural justice as no reasonable opportunity of being heard was granted to the appellants after change in the adjudicating authority. In view of these observations, we are of the considered view that the matter be sent back to the adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh after going through the submissions made by the appellants in their defense and after giving them a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
7. Appeals as well as stay applications are disposed of in the above manner.