9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (5) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and penalty amounts and heard the main appeal. 3. The facts in brief are as follows :- The appellants manufacture glass bottles and they have a factory at Bombay. They have taken a factory belonging to M/s. Western India Glass Works which is situated at plot No. C-11, MIDC Industrial Area, Taloja in Distt. Raigad (Mah.). M/s. Kohinoor Glass Factory Ltd. is a private limited company having its registered office at Sanatnagar, Hyderabad, it has a division functioning under the name and style of Glass and Ceramic Decorators located at Andheri in Bombay. The said division carries out the process of decorating and printing on the glass bottles. The said division purchases a large number of aerated water bottles from the appellants on which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Order. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed an appeal before this Tribunal. This Tribunal by its Order dated 6th June, 1991 set aside the order of the Collector, dated 29-12-1989 remanding the matter to the Collector for de novo adjudication the ground of breach of principles of natural justice as the appellants were not put on notice of the assessable value of the goods being correctly determinable under the third proviso to Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. 4. In pursuance of the remand order, the respondent issued a show cause notice dated 22-8-1991 proposing to adjudicate the matter de novo. In the show cause notice, it is proposed to determine the value of the excisable goods under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excises and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the appellants could not be compelled to appear for the personal hearing and ex parte adjudication would be a mala fide exercise of power. To the above letter, the respondent sent a reply on 4-10-1991 which was received on 9-10-1991 by the appellant. On 10-10-1991, the appellants informed the respondent stating that their Advocate was out of Bombay and he could reply only on his return, the respondent should postpone today s hearing . The appellant s Advocate sent another letter to the respondent in reply on 15-10-1991. 6. Meanwhile, the appellants filed an application before the Tribunal on 30-9-1991 requesting the Tribunal to expedite the disposal of the application dated 18-9-1991. The Tribunal rejected the said request. 7. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the appellants received on 15-1-1992 the impugned Order. Against the said order, they came in appeal before us. 8. The main contention of Shri Habbu is that the adjudication order is in violation of principles of natural justice. According to him, the date of hearing was fixed on 3-12-1991 by a letter dated 22-11-1991. The appellants on receipt of their above letter, by a letter dated 26-11-1991 requested for clarification. In reply, the Collector by his letter dated 29-11-1991 refused to clarify on the ground that at this stage, it is not proper for him to clarify. Thereafter, the appellants by their letter dated 2-12-1991 requested time till 24-12-1991 to consult their legal expert and make written submissions and also requested for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disposal of the Misc. Application filed by the appellants in the Tribunal and fixed up the date of personal hearing on 10-10-1991. On 10-10-1991, the appellants could not appear as their Advocate was out of Bombay and requested for an adjournment. On the basis of the said letter, it appears that no action was taken. However, after the disposal of the Misc. Application filed by the appellant in this Tribunal the Collector himself issued a notice on 25-11-1991 fixing 3-12-1991 as the date for personal hearing. The appellant ought to have appeared on that date before the Collector. However, they sought a clarification which no doubt is not proper. The Collector refused to clarify by his letter dated 29-11-1991 and sticked to the date of person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is very high. From the above, if follows, that the Collector has not given a personal hearing to the appellants in spite of their request and has not even considered the written submissions filed by the appellants before signing the Order. Since he signed the Order on 9-1-1992 and since the written submissions were before him, he ought to have issued a date fixing for personal hearing in the light of the written submissions although he as already written an Order on 20-12-1991. Since there is violation of principles of natural justice. We allow the appeal and set aside the Order of the Collector and remand the same to him for de novo adjudication after complying with the principles of natural justice. The appellants should also co-operate w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
