9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (5) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the learned Collector in the impugned orders may be stayed during the pendency of the Appeals. 3. Since no deposit of duty or penalty is involved in these cases, both the sides stated that the Appeals themselves may be taken up for hearing. Accordingly, the Stay Petitions have become infructuous and they are disposed of as such. 4. We heard both the sides with respect to the Appeals. Since both the matters involved in the Appeals arise out of seizure of goods manufactured at 35A, Chaulpatti Road, Calcutta by the appellants M/s. Cent Axia Airflow Private Limited and since it is the case of the department that they were so manufactured on behalf of the appellants M/s. Subarban Industrial Works Pvt. Ltd. (Lessee)/ we dispose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow cause notice by the abovesaid persons on behalf of the appellants stating that the previous letters were extracted under coercion and threat and there were no grounds for extension of time. The learned adjudicating Officer considered the reply and granted extension. 7. The learned Advocates appearing for the appellants contended that there is no specific reason as to why failure on the part of the Investigating Officers to complete the investigation within the statutory period of six months. It was also pointed out that the appellants attended before the investigating officer for more than 20 times and submitted documents and papers. It is the legal obligation on the part of the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation. It w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they had no objection for the grant of extension of time beyond the statutory period of six months. In those letters, they had also waived the right of personal hearing. It was only on 24-12-1992 they filed a reply stating that these letters had been obtained under coercion and threat. But they were given an opportunity to appear for personal hearing on 24-12-1992. On 22-12-1992, through a letter they had waived the right of personal hearing and did not appear before the adjudicating authority on 24-12-1992. Therefore, he rightly considered the reply filed by the applicants and arrived on a conclusion. Whenever any such allegation of threat is alleged, it is for the party alleging to show that they wrote the letter under threat and coercio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AMINATION FINDINGS 6. I have considered the written submissions made in reply to show cause notice by both the noticees on 24-12-1992 vis-a-vis the progress, in investigation and prima facie case made. 6.1 I find that though the time allowed for submission of replies to the show cause notice was short yet both noticees were able to prepare exhaustive replies to the same within the short period. Therefore, the ground raised becomes redundant and hence requires no further discussion. 6.2 Next, the noticees have discussed the merit of the case relating to clubbing of the clearances of both units in their reply and cited several judgments in support of their contentions to establish that they are two separate legal entities. However, at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
