"4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, after elaborately referring to the factual matrix submitted that the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice and shows clear arbitrary exercise of power and the impugned order is bad in law having not afforded opportunity of hearing. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association Vs. Designated Authority (2011) 263 ELT 481. Further, it is submitted that the impugned order travels beyond Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution of India and as per Section 5(2) of the CST Act, 1956, imports are not taxable. Further, it is submitted that the impugned order has been passed travelling beyond the scope of the notice and thereby contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Indure Ltd., and Another vs. CTO (2010) 34 VST 509 and K.G.Khosla & Co., Vs. DC (1966) 17 STC 473. Further, it is submitted that respondent ought to have appreciated that the high sea sales agreement contemplates endorsement of bill of lading in favour of the petitioner and the bill of entry has been filed by the customer and goods were cleared on payment of customs duty. Further, it is submitted that the contract with the customer clearly stipulated that there would be imported materials and the buyer was clearly aware that the materials would be imported by the petitioner and sold under Section 5(2) of the CST Act. Further, several other contentions have been raised on the merits of the assessment. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel would submit that the impugned order of assessment deserves to be quashed.
