9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (2) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Jain, Member (T)]. The Ld. advocate Shri R.L. Vohra appearing for the applicant/appellant states that the impugned order imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- in aggregate under different rules. It also demands duty of Rs. 1,58,815 / - on the value of goods alleged to have been clandestinely cleared without payment of duty. In addition, a duty of Rs. 3,630/- has also been demanded on the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 20-8-1988 under Postal receipt No. 1421. This point was further taken up by the applicant/ appellant in his letter dated 31-8-1988 addressed to the Additional Collector of Central Excise, the adjudicating authority in this case. It is, therefore, urged that no fair and effective opportunity of hearing has been granted and on this point alone the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but the appellant/applicant has been adopting delaying tactics for one reason or the other. Final hearing was, therefore, fixed for 25-8-1988 and it is clearly mentioned in the impugned order that nobody again turned up despite so many opportunities to the party . He, therefore, reiterates that the applicant does not deserve any sympathetic consideration and no case of breach of natural justice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the applicant as mentioned above. On this plea alone we feel it is a fit case for dispensing with unconditionally the dues demanded under the impugned order and the case is fit for remand for de novo decision by the adjudicating authority in accordance with the principles of natural justice. We are also not impressed by the plea of the learned JDR that the adjudicating authority was not to tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
