6.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13361/2009
HEMANT AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Shikha Sapra & Mr. Navneet Panwal,
Advocates.
versus
UOI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Mukesh Anand, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 13.01.2011
By this writ petition, the petitioner prays for issue of writ of
certiorari for quashing the order number
C.No.CCCU(DZ)Cus/Legal/Comp/01/2009 dated 21st July, 2009 and further to issue a mandamus to allow the application for compounding. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the competent authority by the impugned order dated 21st July, 2009 has declined compounding, relying on the decision in Union of India versus Anil Chanana and Another, 2008 (222) ELT WRIT PETITIOIN (CIVIL) NO. 13361/2009 Page 1 of 3 481 SC but the ratio of the said decision has not been appositely applied in the facts of the case. He has drawn our attention to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the order impugned. Additionally to bolster the submission, it is contended that the impugned order was passed in the month of July, 2009 and thereafter the department has issued a set of guidelines by way of clarification on 15 th October, 2009. The guidelines have been brought on record.
2. Having heard Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mukesh Anand, learned counsel for the Revenue Department, we are inclined to quash the order passed by the respondent No. 2 and direct him to rehear the matter on the bedrock of the guidelines issued as per the circular No. 29/2009-Cus dated 15th October, 2009. Needless to say, the said authority shall offer adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. To cut short delay, it is directed that the petitioner or his authorized representative shall appear before the said authority on 9th February, 2011 and thereafter the said authority shall fix a date and finalise the matter as per law. Be it noted, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application for compounding but have only remitted the matter, regard being had to the clarificatory circular which came to be issued at a later stage. Needless to say, the adjudicating authority shall not refer to its earlier impugned order as, for the simon pure reason that when the order is WRIT PETITIOIN (CIVIL) NO. 13361/2009 Page 2 of 3 lanceted it becomes extinct in the eye of law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.
Copy of this order shall be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties under signature of the Court Master.
CHIEF JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA, J.
JANUARY 13, 2011 VKR WRIT PETITIOIN (CIVIL) NO. 13361/2009 Page 3 of 3