Fri. Apr 23rd, 2021

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Now Know As … vs Union Of India & Ors. on 16 May, 2017

1 min read

W.P. (C) 2632/2017 Page 1 of 6
2. One of the main planks of challenge to the Final Findings is that the
Designated Authority („DA‟) (Respondent No.4) acted in gross violation of
principles of natural justice as “despite the fact that Respondent No. 4
granted hearing on 2nd March, 2017 to various interested parties in the
matter, the same was in complete exclusion to the Petitioner herein.” It is
not in dispute that against the above Final Findings, the Petitioner has a
statutory remedy by way of an appeal under Section 9 C of the CTA before
the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal („CESTAT‟).

3. Mr Gopal Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, was
asked whether the Petitioner was precluded in any manner from urging this
very ground before the CESTAT. The question was posed in the context of
three orders passed by this Court in Alcatel-Lucent India Ltd. v Designated
Authority 2016 (338) ELT 397 (Del.); PTA Users Association v. Union of
India 2016 (340) ELT 125 (Del.) and Balaji Action Buildwell v. Union of
India 2016 (337) ELT 166 (Del.) where in similar circumstances, this Court
declined to entertain a writ petition directly against the Final Finding of the
DA without exhausting the remedy by way of an appeal before the
CESTAT.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply