High CourtsDivision Bench(2010) 05 P&H CK 0035

Gupta Impex vs Union of India

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 26 May 2010 · Citation: (2011) 270 ELT 327

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Singh, J · A.K. Goel, J
CASE NUMBER
C.W.P. No. 7330 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 320 words

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This petition seeks quashing of order dated 26-2-2010 passed by respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the

Customs Act, 1962 (for short, ""the Act"").

2.

Case of the petitioner is that it imported ''material under Open General Licence and requisite duty was duly paid. Inspite of the said payment,

impugned order dated 26-2-2010 was passed, asking for further payment of duty without taking into account the duty already paid. Vide order

dated 19-12-2005, passed by this Court in P.P. Industries v. Commissioner of Customs Amritsar 2007 (220) E.L.T. 55, Annexure P-1, this

Court held that due credit has to be given for the customs duty already paid. Still order, Annexure P-2, was passed without giving credit for duty

paid and without serving any notice to the petitioner. Thus, the order passed without complying with principles of natural justice was liable to be set

aside. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in Sonia Overseas (P) Ltd. v. Union of India 2009 (241) E.L.T. 38.

3.

On 28-4-2010, following order was passed :-

Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the impugned order has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in

similar circumstances, this Court interfered with a similar order in Sonia Overseas (P) Ltd. v. Union of India 2009 (241) E.L.T. 38.

Notice of motion.

Mr. G.S. Ghuman, Advocate, present in Court, accepts notice and seeks time.

List again on 26-5-2010.

4.

Reply has been filed stating that notices were duly served but during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents stated that

notices were served only by ordinary post and not by registered post, as required u/s 153 of the Act.

5.

In view of above position, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is set aside with liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with

law.

6.

The petition is disposed of.