- (1.) The subject matter of challenge before the Writ Court was an order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs on 20th December, 2012 confirming a demand of Rs. 14,20,122/-. The learned Trial Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the writ petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Trial Court, the present appeal was filed. Mr. Choudhury learned Advocate appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner submitted that his client had before the Additional Commissioner of Customs relied on a judgment in the case of Padmini Exports v. Union of India, 2012 284 ELT 490 but the Additional Commissioner of Customs did not consider the judgment and got rid of the same by holding that the judgment was in respect of a different case. The aforesaid observation is by no means enough to get rid of a judgment cited by a litigant. The Additional Commissioner of Customs was under an obligation to consider the judgment and to disclose as to why the ratio of that judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances before him. He obviously did not do so. Mr. Choudhury has drawn our attention to a Division Bench judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Century Textiles Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, 2008 232 ELT 389 wherein the following views were taken: It appears from the record that the petitioner was relying upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Limited, 1995 77 ELT 433 . That judgment has been referred to in the original order, but perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) shows that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered that judgment and has not given any reasons why the case of the petitioner is not covered and how that judgment is distinguishable and without recording such finding, the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a finding that the Revenue has very strong case. In our opinion, therefore, the Commissioner (A) has failed to consider material which was relevant for making an order. A quasi Judicial authority cannot exclude from its consideration the material which is relevant. If it does so, the order suffers from non-observance of the principles of natural justice. We are in agreement of the aforesaid views expressed by the Bombay High Court. We, therefore, are of the opinion that there has been violation of principles of natural justice and in such case alternative remedy is no bar. The order dated 20th December, 2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs is, therefore, set aside. The matter is remanded to him. He shall hear the matter once again upon notice to the parties considering the submission both on facts and law and shall thereafter pass a reasoned order as early as possible within two months from the date of communication of this order.
(2.) The appeal and the application are thus disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.;