9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber (T)]. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows : 2. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants herein alleging that the appellants had been manufacturing package tea by packing loose tea in Unit containers put up for sale, without payment of duty, although as required under the law. Inasmuch as Chapter Note 2 to Chapter Note 9 envisaged the packing of tea in Unit conta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, asked to show cause as to why duty of Rs. 1,88,373.79 may not be recovered from them under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They were also asked to show cause as to why the goods seized may not be confiscated and the penalty be not imposed. On adjudication the Additional Collector of Central Excise confirmed the aforesaid amount of duty, he confiscated the seized packets ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lea of the ld. Advocate that the evidence upon which allegation has been upheld by the Adjudicating Officer against the appellants are different and were not mentioned in the show cause notice. In other words the evidence relied upon has been not disclosed to the appellants. On this basis ld. Advocate had made the submission, in the first instance, that the impugned order had gone beyond the show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justice have been violated by the adjudicating authority inasmuch as reliance has been placed on certain pieces of evidence which had not been disclosed to the appellants. We are, therefore of the view that the impugned order is required to be set aside on that ground alone. Consequently we set it aside and remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for de novo adjudication after it supplied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
