1998 (1) TMI 138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er : G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)]. These are two appeals, one by the Company and another by the Managing Director with reference to the impugned order. 2. Arguing for the appellants in support of the appeal filed by the parties, Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that duty of Rs. 3,39,693/- has been demanded from the Appellant Company Nagrath Paints (P) Ltd., and penalty of Rs. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng. 4. Shri D.K. Nayyar, learned DR drew our attention to the finding portion in the impugned order wherein several opportunities were given to the parties to file reply to the show cause notice but the same has not been availed. Though the factory was closed on the said dates but the Director who appeared in person requested for time to file defence reply did no avail an opportunity nor filed a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s taken the view in the case of Vishnu Rolling Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune [1995 (76) E.L.T. 96 (Tribunal)] that personal hearing is necessary even if no reply to the show cause notice was filed. In the facts and circumstances of the case and since personal hearing was not granted as can be seen from the impugned order, we are of the view that matter will have to go back for reconsi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X