1. After hearing both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 13,36,230/-, we found that it was possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage and hence proceed to do so since the main grievance of the applicant is that of contravention of principles of natural justice. Hence we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and take up the appeal for final hearing.
2. The issue relates to project import. The appellants had applied for registration of their contract under Project Import Regulations, 1986 for assessment of goods imported for the purpose of setting up of High Technology Spring Manufacturing Unit at Ghaziabad at concessional rate of duty under CTH 9801 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The contract was registered and the goods were assessed to duty provisionally under the above heading on the importers executing bonds and bank guarantees and subject to their fulfilling the conditions and regulations laid down under the Project Import Regulations. Although the importers were required to submit reconciliation statement in terms of Clause 7 of the Regulations, within three months from the date of clearance for home consumption indicating the details of goods imported together with necessary documents as proof regarding the value and quantity imported and other documents, they did not do so and hence show cause notice dated 21/10/1999 was issued to the importers calling upon them to show cause against de-registering of contract and assessment of goods on merits under appropriate heading under the Customs Tariff without extending the benefit of concessional rate of duty under CTH 9801. The adjudicating authority held that the imports made by the appellants were not eligible for concessional rate of duty under the Project Import Regulations, finalised the assessment and confirmed differential duty demand as mentioned above together with interest. He also ordered enforcement of the bonds executed at the time of registration of their contract. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order; hence this appeal.
3. We find that the plea of the importers before the Commissioner (Appeals) was that they had neither received the show cause notice purported to have been issued to them nor received notice of personal hearing before the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) records the submission but, however, holds that sufficient time and opportunity had been granted to the appellants and since they had not submitted the reconciliation certificate, upheld the demands resulting out of assessment on merits, after denying the benefit of project import. We find that the contention of the importers that they had not received the copy of the show cause notice nor notices issued for appearance before the adjudicating authority have not been rebutted/controverted. They also produced before us reconciliation certificate from the Central Excise authorities that the imported goods had been installed. Since the orders of the authorities below suffers from the vice of contravention of principles of natural justice by non-serving show cause notice and non-grant of personal hearing we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision in accordance with law after furnishing a copy of the show cause notice to the appellants and after affording them a reasonable opportunity of being heard in their defence. It shall be open to the appellants to raise all the submissions as they deem fit and necessary including the plea raised before us.