9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise, Meerut for re-adjudication. We had announced that detailed order will be issued later. This is the order giving the reasons. In view of the reasons for which the appeals were being allowed, and remitted for re-adjudication, it is unnecessary to state the facts in great detail. 3. Shri A.N. Haksar, Advocate for the appellants in Appeal No. 225/83 (M/s. Swadeshi Polytex Ltd.) as well as Shri R.H. Bajoria, Advocate for the appellants in Appeal No. 511/83 (M/s. Eastern Spg. Mills and Industries Ltd.) submitted that the order of the Collector needs to be set aside for the reason that principles of natural justice had been violated and that therefore they would make their submissions on that question in the first instance. We heard them o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f no reply is received within 10 days thereafter it will be presumed that they had nothing further to add and a decision may be taken on the materials already on record. 6. M/s. Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. sent a reply dated 10-3-1980 mentioning that they would be grateful if records of personal hearing granted to them as well as to the other appellants before the two earlier Collectors are supplied to them and that on receipt of the said copies they would indicate whether they had any thing more to add and whether they would like to be heard in person. The complaint of Shri Haksar is that no reply was vouchsafed to this request and they were neither supplied with the copies of the records of the earlier personal hearings nor informed why they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re certainly aware of what they had submitted during the two earlier personal hearings and there was no question of violation of principles of natural justice if copies of the record thereof was not furnished by the Collector as requested by them. He submitted that in the normal course copies of the records of personal hearing on both days would have been given to the appellants on the dates of hearing themselves and thus the necessary copies would have been available with the appellants even without the Collector now furnishing the same as requested. He, therefore, submitted that when, after fixing the date for a further personal hearing on 7-9-1982, the Collector proceeded to adjudicate without waiting for the appellants (who had admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. We are satisfied that in doing so he acted in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. On the question whether, as submitted by Shri Vineet Kumar, copies of the records of personal hearings would have been in the normal course granted to the appellants on the dates of the personal hearings themselves, it may be seen that the case for the appellants is (as set forth in ground A of their grounds of appeal before us) that the signatures of the representatives of the appellants were obtained before the commencement of the personal hearing but that no signatures were obtained at the conclusion of the hearing and in fact the minutes of the hearing were neither dictated nor recorded in their presence. Therefore, it would b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earings. The Department did not choose to send a reply. A personal hearing was fixed more than two years later under notice dated 18-8-1982 for hearing on 7-9-1982. The appellants sent an immediate reply on 26-8-1982 reiterating the earlier request but again received no reply at all. In the circumstances it is hard to understand the criticism of the Collector that the appellants were adopting dilatory tactics and he was therefore not inclined to consider the request for copies. On the other hand, for reasons already stated, we are satisfied that the appellants were fully justified in seeking for copies of the records of the earlier personal hearings, so that, on perusal thereof, they may make up their mind whether they had any further submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gain, the comment of the Collector in his order is that as he found that the party had already filed detailed submissions in the case the ground for adjournment at this stage, when the case was about 5 years old, was not tenable. We have earlier recapitulated the history of the adjudication and it would be clear that the appellants were in no way responsible for the adjudication not having been completed for over 5 years. Hence it appears to us that laying the blame for this delay on the appellants was not justified. Taking into consideration the facts stated in the request for adjournment, and the ground for the adjournment sought for, we are satisfied that the Collector did not act properly in having declined the adjournment. In any event ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
