Hemant Aggarwal vs Union Of India & Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 198 Del

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

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

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