9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the partners. 2. The show cause notice was issued in this case requiring the appellants M/s. East Coast Surfactant as to why the above said duty should not be demanded and the reply was furnished. After adjudication the impugned order was passed. 3. The learned Advocate Shri J. Shankarraman appearing for the appellants contended before us that no personal hearing was granted and no chance was given to the appellants to urge their case. Therefore the principles of natural justice are violated. He pointed out that the case was posted to 27-10-1994, but on 25-10-1994 the appellants sought for an adjournment of the hearing by another 45 days. He pointed out that this prayer of the appellant was not considered by the adjudicating authority. It was his contention that the adjudicating authority should have first rejected the prayer of the appellant and then intimated the same to the appellants and thereafter the adjudication proceeding should have been done in this case. Since no such order was passed by the adjudicating authority and rejecting the prayer the principles of natural justice are violated. In this connection he relied on the following decision : 1990 (48) E.L.T. 566 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant and he should have also explained as to why he has not sent a letter to the adjudicating authority requesting for an adjournment on the ground that he is personally inconvenienced. In these circumstances the plea of the appellant that he could not appear before the adjudicating authority in view of the fact that his Advocate was not able to appear is not substantiated. It is further seen that the appellants wanted to produce several documents for which time is sought before us. But till date no documents are also submitted before us to show that the intermediate products which were manufactured by the appellants M/s. East Coast Surfactant as claimed by them was returned back to M/s. Himom and M/s. AAA for further processing. The cumulative effect of all these things goes to show that the plea of the appellant with respect to the violation of the principles of natural justice is not substantiated in this case. Even today a prayer was made before us that the appellants may be given time of one month to produce the paper book in this case enclosing all those documents. It is now seen that the adjudication order was passed on 19-12-1994. The appeal was thereafter filed and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w materials were mixed in required proportions and had to be activated together and that no intermediate or semi-finished product emerge out of the raw materials supplied by these two firms. The learned Advocate Shri Shankarraman in this connection stated that Shri D.K. Joseph is not the production-in-charge but he is only a qualified Fitter and he drew our attention to the recital in the reply wherein these facts were stated by the appellant. If actually Shri D.K. Joseph was not the production-in-charge as stated by him in his statement, he would have certainly retracted the statement. If he had not retracted the statement it was open to the appellant to call him for cross-examination. No such request was made by the appellant in the reply to the show cause notice. Therefore this plea now taken up by the appellant is only an after thought and no credence can be given to the same. It is further seen that the Department had examined Shri V. Krishnamurthy the production-in-charge of the firm M/s. AAA. In his statement he has stated that no manufacturing process was undertaken on the goods received back from M/s. East Coast Surfactant. This clearly goes to show that the plea of this a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow : There is one other minor point for consideration. According to the assessee, the duty has been demanded in an incorrect manner. Here again it is not stated as to how the value arrived at is incorrect. The show cause notice has demanded duty only on the basis of value declared by the assessee in the case of their own manufacture. The goods are comparable and when the impugned quantities were manufactured by the assessee, I find no reason why the price adopted by M/s. East Coast cannot be taken into account to demand duty. A perusal of this goes go show that the adjudicating authority has not specifically examined this aspect of abatement as pleaded by the appellant and this requires examination by the adjudicating authority for which purpose the matter requires to be remanded. It is further seen that as per Annexure VII to the show cause notice there is a column with respect to quantities sent as per the entries in the out-pass. Column No. 1 pertains to 57F(2) challan No., Column No. 2 pertains to quantity of goods sent by M/s. AAA to M/s. East Coast Surfactant. Column No. 3 pertains to quantity sent as per the entries in the out-pass register. But in that Column No. 3, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
