9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chaturvedi, SDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. All the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna, vide which duty of Rs. 36,96,157.97 has been confirmed against M/s. Gillooram Gourishankar and penalties have been imposed upon the other appellants. 2. Shri B.N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e removed the goods clandestinely under the second set of gate passes. Shri Chattopadhyay submits that during the course of adjudication, detailed reply was filed and each and every gate pass was explained. However, the said reply has not been taken into consideration and appreciated by the adjudicating authority. As such he submits that the impugned order is a non-speaking order and requires to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eded to decide the matter. As such submits the ld. Counsel that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue submits that it is a clear case of clandestine removal of the goods inasmuch as duplicate and triplicate copies of the gate pass have been recovered from the official as well as the residential premises of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order was passed. It is seen that the date of hearing was fixed on 4-12-1997 and the order was passed after about a period of three months i.e. on 16-2-1998, during which another date of hearing could have been fixed by the adjudicating authority. As such we observe that there has been a violation of principles of natural justice. 6. We also note that the appellants had filed a detailed reply be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
