Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Zenith Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs Acc,

Zenith Limited vs Commissioner of Customs Acc,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 02, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/22732

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Zenith Limited

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs Acc,

Excerpt

1. the show cause notice dated 29/01/1999 was issued to the appellant by appraising group vii, new custom house, ballard estate, mumbai. as per that notice the appellant before us was to show reason why duty amounting to rs. 36,43,985/- should not be demanded, penalty contemplated by section 112 and 114 of the customs act, be imposed.reply to this show cause notice was sent by the appellant to the authority which issued the show cause notice, unfortunately the order in adjudication was passed by the commissioner of customs, air cargo wing. in his order-in-original dated 24/10/2000 it was observed "no reply was received to the notice till august, 2000 inspite of several reminders". he also states that nobody on behalf of the noticee turned up for personal hearing on 13/10/2000. thereupon adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand and also imposed a penalty of rs. 3,50,000/-.2. show cause notice was issued by the custom house, mumbai. reply which was filed before that authority, which issued the show cause notice, was not available with that authority which passed the adjudication order. so the adjudication order was passed without knowing the contention raised by the parties for no fault of the party concerned. record relating to the show cause notice were not transferred to the adjudicating authority by the department. that authority has not verified all the contentions raised by the noticee.therefore we set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority and remand the case back to that authority for denovo consideration and disposal after affording a reasonably opportunity of being heard to appellant herein.3. the appeal is allowed in the above terms. the stay petition moved also disposed off accordingly.

Full Judgment

1. The show cause notice dated 29/01/1999 was issued to the appellant by Appraising Group VII, New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai. As per that notice the appellant before us was to show reason why duty amounting to Rs. 36,43,985/- should not be demanded, penalty contemplated by Section 112 and 114 of the Customs Act, be imposed.

Reply to this show cause notice was sent by the appellant to the authority which issued the show cause notice, Unfortunately the order in adjudication was passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo wing. In his order-in-original dated 24/10/2000 it was observed "no reply was received to the notice till August, 2000 inspite of several reminders". He also states that nobody on behalf of the noticee turned up for personal hearing on 13/10/2000. Thereupon adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/-.

2. Show cause notice was issued by the Custom House, Mumbai. Reply which was filed before that authority, which issued the show cause notice, was not available with that authority which passed the adjudication order. So the adjudication order was passed without knowing the contention raised by the parties for no fault of the party concerned. Record relating to the show cause notice were not transferred to the adjudicating authority by the department. That authority has not verified all the contentions raised by the noticee.

Therefore we set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority and remand the case back to that authority for denovo consideration and disposal after affording a reasonably opportunity of being heard to appellant herein.

3. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. The stay petition moved also disposed off accordingly.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial