9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appropriate rate on 75 reels besides imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/-. 2. Factual backdrops : A show cause notice calling upon the appellants to show cause why a penalty be not imposed upon them under various Rules of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and why the seized reels be not confiscated and why duty be not demanded was issued to the appellants. The said show cause notice was served on the appellants on 30-3-1982 and at the request of the appellants the time was extended upto July, 1982 for facilitating the appellants to inspect the record. On 12-4-1983 it was intimated by the appellants that since the factory of the appellants was under lock out the time may be granted to enable them to have access to the records they wish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s ever given, more particularly, when in that very request it was expressly made it clear that the records which the appellants wanted to produce was in the factory which is under lock out and the same were relevant to prove the defence of the appellant, that is to say, to show that the seized reels were taken out for transport. Shri Rangaswamy further submitted that the request to adjourn the case from 29-6-1983 to another date was not the proper exercise of the discretion because on that date the excise consultant of the appellants was on leave and this fact that he was on leave was never disputed by the Adjudicating Authority. In nutshell, he submitted that it is the fundamental principle of natural justice that not only the opportunity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of the said records for the purpose of deciding the case. To which the appellants vide their letter, dated 14-5-1983 explained that they wanted to produce the record to show that the seized reels in question were taken out for transport but instead of giving time to the appellants, the Adjudicating Authority straightway asked the appellants to appeal for personal hearing without records. I fail to understand that in the teeth of these circumstances how the Adjudicating Authority thought it proper to fix the case for personal hearing without records. It deserves to be mentioned here that the Adjudicating Authority had not said anywhere in the impugned order that the record which the appellants wanted to produce was not relevant. Under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
