9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Original of the Commissioner vide which he had partly allowed and partly disallowed their abatement of duty claim. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. ingots and runners etc. They discharged their duty liability on lumpsum payment, in terms of pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the verification report of the A.C. was not supplied to the appellants and that the abatement claim should have been allowed from 16-12-98 and not from 17-12-98 to 30-12-98 and that the claim for the period 19-1-99 to 3-2-99 could not be disallowed as the appellants gave requisite closure information to the competent authority. The Counsel has also contended that even the duty amount for wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned order. But there is nothing on record to suggest if copy of that report was supplied to the appellants. That report was required to be supplied when the Commissioner had not acted upon the same completely. The appellants made the abatement claims for 16-12-98 to 30-12-98 and 19-1-99 to 3-2-99. The A.C. submitted his report regarding both these claims and the Commissioner did not accept. Un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertainly resulted in mis-carriage of justice. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner deserves to be set aside on this score alone. 8. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner is set aside and the matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority for re-examining the abatement claims of the appellants in accordance with law, after affording them an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
