2007 (11) TMI 533

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt. [Order]. Ld. Advocate, Shri K.P. Dey, appearing for the Appellant submitted that all along they were deprived of justice by both the Authorities below, without consideration of the work-in-progress found by investigating authority on 19-8-99. There was no further investigation made by them after that date to come to the conclusion that the Appellant was involved in clandestine remova .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fore, for violation of natural justice, both the duty demand and penalty imposed shall be unsustainable. 2. Ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue supported the first Appellate Order and submitted that the practice adopted by the Appellant having been found to be questionable and the stock verification resulted with discrepancy, orders were passed properly by the Authorities below. 3.1 Heard both s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pellant should not be dealt prejudicially. Both the authorities having travelled beyond the scope of show-cause notice and denied justice to the Appellant, non-reasoned Appellate Order as well as non-speaking one is unsustainable. 3.2 Consequently, Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order. 3.3 The Appellant is entitled to consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law. (Dicta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X