IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2005 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2005 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2005 OF 2008 M/s.Aluminium Profiles Ltd. .. Petitioners Vs. Union of India & 2 Others .. Respondents Mr.V.A.Thorat, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.N.Chandrachood for the Petitioners. Mrs.S.V.Bharucha with Mr.S.M.Shah for the Respondents. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ. A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ. A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ. DATE : 20th June, 2008 DATE : 20th June, 2008 DATE : 20th June, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the Respondents waives service. By consent, petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. By this petition, the Petitioners are challenging an order dated 29.2.2008 passed by the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Mumbai. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Thorat, appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has pointed out that the Settlement Commissioner has wrongly passed the order against the Petitioners only on the reason that the Petitioners had not filed proper synopsis/submissions and that the Petitioners did not co-operate with the Settlement Commission. It is however pointed out by Mr.Thorat, that the Petitioners, in fact, had filed a very detailed submission on 20th February, 2008 on which date the hearing was kept, (which is annexed as Exhibit "E" to the Petition). The said written submission runs into about 19 pages dealing with all the issues and contentions. It is not only synopsis but an exhaustive written submission which has not been considered by the Settlement Commission. Even the affidavit in reply does not dispute about the same. In fact the affidavit in reply proceeds on the basis that there was a written submission, and there is no denial that there was no such written submission filed by the Petitioners. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the larger interest of justice, we are of the view that the Petitioners ought to have been given a fair hearing, and the detailed written submission filed by the Petitioners ought to have been considered by the Settlement Commission. Hence, only on this limited ground, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 29.2.2008 and remand back the matter to the Settlement Commission for fresh hearing. 4. Needless to state that the Settlement Commission shall take into account the aforesaid written submission dated 20.2.2008 while passing the fresh order. 5. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)