9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s said order forfeited the amount of Rs. 4,78,379/- on the ground that the petitioner had not met its export obligation. This order was confirmed in first Appeal and although the petitioner sought the benefit of the force majeure clause, the first Appellate Authority did not feel that, in the facts of the case, the clause could be invoked. 2. The petitioner thereafter filed the second appeal before the Second Appellate Committee. Several notices for different dates of hearing have been issued from time to time. However, hearing was not held on those dates. Ultimately, the Second Appellate Committee passed an order on 14-7-2003 whereby the petitioner s second appeal was rejected. Apart from the merits of the matter, the petitioner is aggri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, it becomes clear that the statement contained in the impugned order None appeared on behalf of the appellant firm for the hearing held on 11-6-2003 despite proper notice is contrary to the record. Insofar as the meeting held on 14-7-2003 is concerned, there is a letter of the petitioner itself dated 4-7-2003 which is on record of the original file whereby the petitioner had requested for an opportunity to explain the case to the Committee in the next Appellate Committee meeting to be held on 14-7-2003. The learned Counsel for the petitioner was pointedly asked that in view of this statement contained in the letter of 4-7-2003, the petitioner was very well aware of the meeting of the Second Appellate Committee which was to be he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Counsel for the respondent has stated that they had already issued notices which have already been mentioned above and in particular for the hearing on 14-7-2003 and they say that the same had been dispatched by speed post on 2-7-2003. On the letter dated 4-7-2003 which had been received from the petitioner there is an handwritten endorsement to the effect : Will attend as telephonically Infd. 4. This endorsement, of course, does not bind the petitioner and as there is some doubt, particularly, in view of the palpably incorrect statement that is contained in the impugned order that a hearing was held on 11-6-2003 where nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner firm despite proper notice, there is sufficient cause that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
