ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (Judicial)
1. This stay application came up for hearing today against the order-in-original No. 47/2000 Commr.(Air) dt. 15.11.2000 along with corrigendum dt. 19.1.2001.
2. In the impugned order, the differential duty of Rs.9,11,476 was confirmed by invoking the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposing Penalty of Rs.1 lakh under section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The Applicants were aggrieved with the working out of the amount and pointed out that the differential duty was wrongly worked out even by the department’s claim, as it was not correctly done and the actual duty works out in terms of the departmental claim will be Rs,.8,00,135/- The Ld. Commissioner after granting a hearing issued a corrigendum by passing a corrigendum order. Instead of reducing the duty the Ld. Commissioner, however, enhanced the duty from Rs.9,11,476/- to Rs.9,71,128/- Thus on this account, the Ld. Counsel submits that the order is bad in law and requires to be set aside for de novo consideration. He further submits that the Bill of Entry was finalised in the year 1.2.95 and the Show cause notice was issued on 31.1.2000, thus it is clearly time barred. He submits that appellants had not suppressed any facts and all the details were available with the Department. Therefore, the Ld. Commissioner ought to have given detailed reasons as to how the demands were sustainable and on what grounds the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act was invoked. He submits that detail findings on this ground has not been given. Thus the order is also not a speaking order, therefore he seeks for waiver pre deposit and also for remand to the original authority for de novo consideration.
3. The Ld. DR reiterated the departmental view.
4. On a careful consideration, we notice that the appellants had filed an application seeking corrigendum for working out of the duty and had pointed out that even by the department’s own claim the differential duty payable will be Rs.9,11,476/- The Ld. Commissioner should have given a personal hearing and ought to have got checked and verified the duty working. However, the same was not done and the Ld. Commissioner instead passed an order, enhancing the duty to Rs.9,71,128/- by his corrigendum order dt.19.1.2001. Thereby, there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. The Ld. Commissioner also ought to have given a detailed findings on the charge of suppression in the matter. As the same has not been dealt with in detail in the order, therefore the plea raised by the Counsel for remand is justified. While granting the waiver of pre deposit, the appeal is taken up for disposal and the matter is remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration. The Ld. Commissioner shall grant personal hearing to the applicants and re-look into the working sheet given by the Applicants and giving a detailed order both on the differential duty as well as the aspect of suppression. At this stage the Ld. Counsel seeks a direction for reconsideration of the matter on merits also. Also since this matter is being remanded for de novo consideration, the Ld. Commissioner shall pass a detailed speaking order by rehearing the matter by following the principle of natural justice.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open court)