9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondents. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Vice President]. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the applicants herein for not pre-depositing the amount of duty of Rs. 23,22,324/- as directed by him vide his interim stay order, dated 24-5-1999. Ld. Advocate Shri G. Shiv Das submits that the interim order has been passed without giving an opportunity for pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they are manufactured and utilised captively at site.He submits that benefit of this notification has been denied by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the site is not where the goods are used but it is somewhat away from the site of use of the concrete blocks. Therefore, it is not the manufacture at site and hence the benefit of Notification 36/94-C.E. has been denied. This view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re solely used in the said construction work only. Ld. Advocate therefore, submits that the applicants have a strong prima facie case insofar as demand of duty is concerned. Consequently, he submits that there is no warrant for imposing any penalty, as has been done by the adjudicating authority by imposing an amount of Rs. 7,79,931/-. 3. Opposing the contentions, ld. JDR Shri Ravinder Babu reit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not find a prima facie case. This is no manner of dealing with a stay application. Even if the opportunity for personal hearing is not granted, the authority below is required to give a speaking order on all the pleas taken by an assessee in his stay application. Otherwise there is a clear case of violation of principles of natural justice. Apart from that, we also observe that the applicants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
