9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ajit Awasthi, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - On hearing both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs 40,45,208.37 confirmed as duty and Rs. 10,000/- imposed as penalty, it appeared that for the reasons stated below, the appeal itself could be disposed off. Both sides agreeing this was done. 2. The facts in brief are as follows : 3.&em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther figure of Rs. 93,54,034.37 as recoverable without giving any grounds as to how this figure was computed. 4. Dy. Commissioner adjudicated the case. He referred to some verification report given by the Range Officer which report did not figure in the show cause notice at all. He also referred to some invoices and held that since the modvatable copies thereof had not been submitted the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apse of was technical in nature. The Commissioner (Appeals) without giving the assessees an opportunity passed the interim orders directing pre-deposit of Rs. 20,00,000/-. Against this order the assessees filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Tribunal as not being maintainable. Shortly thereafter the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their appeal in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es in a number of judgments the Tribunal had held that there was denial of natural justice and have remanded the proceedings back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo considerations. 8. In this case it is even more important that the Commissioner (Appeals) hears the assessees in view of the infirmities in the show cause notice and also in the proceedings before the adjudicating authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
