9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by its order dated 24-9-1998, set aside the stay order, stating that the application under Section 35F filed by the assessees shall be deemed to be pending and shall be taken up by the Tribunal for consideration afresh. We are, therefore, required to hear both sides on the stay application. However, with the consent of both sides, we proceeded to hear the appeal itself, after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty for reasons recorded hereunder : 2. In this case a duty demand of Rs. 31,39,543.60 has been confirmed on a quantity of 3139.544 MTs of MS flats and bars alleged to have been manufactured and cleared during the period from 28-1-1993 to 12-10-1993 out of MS billets alleged to have been cleared by M/s. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied upon for the purpose of confirming the charge of clandestine removal. He further submits that the copies of GRs of the transporters which are relied upon documents, were not furnished to the appellants and that the adjudicating authority has relied upon the statements of one Gurvinder Singh and Puran Mal, which statements were nor relied upon in the show causes notice and, therefore, he submits that these statements cannot be used as evidence against the appellants. For the above reasons, coupled with the fact that the factory has been closed from 1996 and, therefore, the assessee is not in a position to comply with the requirement of pre-deposit, the appellants pray that the impugned order may be set aside and remanded for de novo adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner and taken over subsequently by another Commissioner. The appellants have satisfied us with reference to their letter dated 30-4-1996 (page 90 of the paper book) that they sought the opportunity of further personal hearing when the proceedings got transferred to the Commissioner who ultimately adjudicated the case and, therefore, were entitled to be heard by him before he passed the impugned order. We, therefore, agree with the appellants that principles of natural justice have been contravened in this case and, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for de novo adjudication by the Commissioner who shall afford the appellants an opportunity of being heard in person before passing fresh orders. 5. The appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
