9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 48,74,828/- and Rs. 1 lakh against the first applicants and imposes penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the second applicants. The de novo order has been passed by the Joint Commissioner in pursuance of order of remand passed by the Tribunal earlier read with Miscellaneous Order dated 30-9-2008. It is the grievance of the applicants that the said order of remand and miscellaneous order have not been complied with and the necessary documents have not been furnished. 3. We note at the outset that while disposing of the earlier applications of the applicants, the Tribunal had prescribed a time limit of three months for the adjudicating authority to pass fresh orders and it was also stated by the Tribunal that it is finally declared that no further r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l hearings given by various adjudicating officers and the Orders-in-Original were passed ex parte and subsequently appeals filed with Commissioner (Appeals) were rejected. Thereafter, the parties filed a petition with CESTAT and the Hon ble Tribunal directed to furnish copies of documents again vide its Order dated 3-10-2008. (ii) On receipt of the above order, the parties were once again provided with copies of documents for the second time wherein 5099 pages and 590 sheets of documents were again given on 11-12-2008 which were acknowledged by all the parties concerned along with their consultant Shri T. Subbiah Nadar. However, it is submitted that copies of certain documents could not be supplied due to various reasons as narrated in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot been supplied with the necessary documents are being disputed by the department vehemently. In fact, it has been stated that voluminous copies of documents have been supplied to the applicants. It has also been contended on behalf of the department that the impugned orders have been passed only relying on the documents which have been provided to the applicants. It has also been submitted before us on behalf of the department that all the documents which could not be supplied to the applicants have not been relied upon while passing impugned orders. 8. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that if the applicants are aggrieved by the impugned orders they should approach the first appellate authority by way of filing appeals as pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
