9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... When the matter was called Shri Prakash Shah, learned Advocate who is representing the main appellant namely M/s. Amber Processors was not available in the Court therefore, the matter was adjourned to 27th July, 2011. At this stage Shri Mihir Deshmukh, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Prakash Shah, and all other parties requested to take up the matter today itself.Therefore, with consent of all the parties, the matters are taken up for final disposal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Amber Processors, a division of M/s. Piramal Spinning and Weaving Mills were registered with the Central Excise department and are engaged in the processing of cotton and man-made fabrics. A show-cause notice dated 24.03.2001 was issued to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Poddar, Director (Marketing). Goods were also confiscated which were already redeemed on payment of duty and redemption fine. 3. Shri Mayur Shroff, learned Advocate for the appellants namely M/s. J.P. Enterprises submitted that the relied upon documents have not been supplied to the appellants. Therefore, they could not contest the case before the adjudicating authority. As the appellant is a merchant manufacturer who has sent fabrics for processing to M/s. Amber Processors and the allegation of under-valuation of fabrics is against the appellant, therefore, unless and until the contentions of the appellant are being heard by the adjudicating authority, the order for demanding differential duty is bad in the eyes of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon documents to the appellants, the appellants could have been able to reply the show-cause notice. It is on record that the request of the appellants has not been considered to put their defence by the adjudicating authority.Therefore, we hold that in this case principle of nature justice has been violated by the adjudicating authority by not supplying relied upon documents to the appellants and by not considering the appellant's request for adjournment of the case. Therefore, the matter needs examination at the end of adjudicating authority. 9. In view of the above observation, we remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication after supplying the relied upon document to M/S. J.P. En ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
