ORDER
Harish Chander, Vice President
1. The applicants have made a prayer for dispensing with the pre-deposit of the duty amount of Rs. 13,203.33. Shri T.P.S. Kang, learned Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the applicant. He reiterated the contentions made in the application for stay. Shri Kang pleaded that in the show cause notice dated 26th June, 1987 the Asstt. Collector had proposed to assess the goods, viz., tag-guns under Chapter 85 but the Asstt. Collector as well as Collector (Appeals) have mentioned Heading 82.01/04. No corrigendum was issued, and as such, there was denial of principles of natural justice. Shri Kang pleaded for the grant of stay.
2. Shri S.K. Roy, learned SDR, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, pleaded that full opportunity was given to the applicant for filing a proper reply, and the Asstt. Collector has proceeded on the basis of the reply filed by the applicant, and Collector (Appeals) has also made observations. He has pleaded for the rejection of the stay application. Shri Roy further pleaded that the order passed by the Asstt. Collector does not go beyond the limits of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. He again pleaded for the rejection of the stay application.
3. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Hon. Supreme Court in the case of New Samundri Transport Co. (P) Ltd. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. in para No. 7 had held as under:
7. What is important in a departmental action of this type for violation of conditions of permit is that it must relate to the particular permits appertaining to concerned vehicles. It is of utmost importance that charges are made with reference to each permit in clear terms in order to enable the permit-holder to furnish his explanation. Proviso to Section 60(1) which requires mandatory compliance is nothing short of a reasonable opportunity to the permit-holder to furnish his explanation. Unless, therefore, the breaches of conditions or other allegations are particularised with reference to each permit in the show cause notice such notice is clearly invalid and no action can be taken under such a notice. This is exactly what has happened in this case resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice ingrained in the proviso to Section 60(1) of the Act. The High Court, therefore, was not right in not interfering with the order of the authorities cancelling the permits.
In view of the above discussion, prima facie, there appears to be denial of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case Uptron Powertronics v. CC Calcutta II , we are of the view that if the applicants are desired to deposit the duty amount at Rs. 1320333, it will amount to undue hardship. We dispense with the pre-deposit of the same and further order that during the pendency of the appeal the revenue authorities shall not pursue the recovery proceedings.
(Pronounced and1 dictated in the open court).