9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Mahendrakumar P. Parmar submits that the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 30,29,757/- and consequent penalties on all the applicants as well. It is his submission that the said impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice in as much as that they have not been granted inspection of documents which have been asked by them from the year 2003 onwards. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority has not considered their request even at the time of last hearing. It is also the submission that the entire case is based upon two evidences i.e. documents recovered from Shri Bhumish Shah (applicant in appeal No. C/342/08-Mum.) and also on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. Hence after granting waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved, the appeals are taken up for disposal. We find from the impugned order that the adjudicating authority has noted as under : 10(v) With the change in adjudicating authority, a personal hearing was fixed on 9-3-2007 at 1200 Hrs. As nobody appeared for hearing the personal hearing was re-fixed on 28-3-2007 at 1500 Hrs. The Advocate representing noticee nos. 1 and 2 appeared for hearing and requested submit certain chits and faxes as mentioned in their letter dated 26-12-2003. 10(vi) This office vide letter dt. 2-8-2007 had requested AD, DRI to supply relied upon/non-relied upon documents and also inspection of the documents to the noticees. 10(vii) Vide letter dt. 9-10- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the documents and hence the appellants should continue in the adjudication proceedings. In the absence of any such letter or communication, the appellants may be correct in entertaining a view, that the request for inspection of relied upon documents is being processed. In view of the above reasoning, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It is settled law that any order which is passed in violation of principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside. We hold that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is also to be noted that the entire case is relating to demand pertaining to the period 1999-2001. Since the issue is of 1999-2001, we direct the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
