9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , a Partnership firm, on 9-7-1998 demanding duty of over Rs. 16 lakhs from them on M.S. rounds and M.S. flats allegedly manufactured and cleared by them during April 1994 to August 1996 and proposing to impose penalties on them under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and under various provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In adjudication of this show cause notice, the Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty against the party and imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 8 lakhs under Rule 173Q. The amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs already paid under protest by the party was appropriated towards the demand. The adjudicating authority also imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/- in lieu of confiscation of the plant and machinery of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Muhktiar Singh approached the Hon ble High Court and obtained direction for early disposal of their stay application by the appellate Commissioner. The High Court s direction to the appellate Commissioner was specifically to dispose of the stay application filed by the petitioner preferably on 20-1-2006 as per law. Ld. Counsel has shown us the hearing notice dated 14-11-2005 issued to the appellant by the Commissioner (Appeals). Para 2 of this Notice, which was issued in a printed format, reads thus,- I am directed to inform you that the captioned stay petition Appeal has been posted for personal hearing before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai on 20-1-2006 at 10.30 A.M. The hearing will be held in the chamber ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. Commissioner (Appeals) tacitly condoned any delay of the appeal filed by the party. Thereafter it was not open to him to dismiss the appeal as time-barred, and, that too, without giving the party reasonable opportunity of being heard on the question whether the appeal was delayed and, if delayed, whether the delay was liable to be condoned. Hence, the main grievance raised in the present appeal i.e. natural justice was denied to the appellant by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is found to be tenable. It is also found that the Hon ble High Court s direction was to take up the party s stay application on 20-1-06. The Court had not directed the appellate Commissioner to take up their appeal for hearing on that day. 6. For the aforesaid reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
