9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1987 (8) TMI 331 - AT - Central Excise
Issues: Compliance with principles of natural justice regarding inspection of documents and waiver of personal hearing.
In this case, the appellants were granted 43 days for inspection of documents by the Revenue. However, due to the voluminous nature of the records, they were unable to complete the inspection within the given time frame. The appellants argued that they did not waive their right to a personal hearing, even though they could not file a reply to the show cause notice due to incomplete inspection. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellants had not completed the necessary inspection and had not waived their right to a personal hearing, highlighting a lack of compliance with principles of natural justice. As a result, the Tribunal ordered a remand of the matter to the adjudicating authority for further consideration. The appellants proposed to pay for photostat copies of documents they required, stating that they needed additional time to file a reply after receiving these copies. The Tribunal directed the Collector of Central Excise to facilitate the provision of photostat copies to the appellants within a specified time frame. The appellants were granted two months to file a reply to the show cause notice after receiving the documents. The Collector of Central Excise was also instructed to schedule a hearing and pass orders in accordance with the law after the reply was filed. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of cooperation from the appellants and warned that failure to adhere to the timeline could result in fresh orders being passed by the Collector of Central Excise. Furthermore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for disposal in accordance with the law and the directions provided. The Bank Guarantee provided by the appellants was to be discharged, and the cash deposited with Revenue was to remain until adjudication orders were passed. The appeal was allowed by remand, and no specific orders were made regarding the cross objection filed.
|
