9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner had given an opportunity after two months to the appellants, the appellants could not have pleaded before this bench that no reasonable opportunity was given to the appellants.Therefore, we are of the opinion that principles of natural justice has been violated by the Commissioner while passing the order, matter remanded back to the Commissioner, appeal as well as the stay applications are disposed of - E/561/2010 - - - Dated:- 6-6-2011 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Appearance: Shri D.B.Shroff, Sr. Advocate for the appellants Shri V.K. Singh, Authorised Representative (SDR) for the respondent Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellants have filed this appeal along with the stay application. After h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter was fixed for hearing on 20th August, 2009. On that date, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. The next date of hearing was fixed for 10/09/2009 for which the notice was served on the appellant on 07/09/2009. On that date, i.e. on 10/09/2009 the appellant sought adjournment as the notice was too short. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for 7/10/2009. On that date the appellants appeared before the adjudicating authority and requested that the appellants has to visit the office of DGCEI to take certain documents and only thereafter, they will be able to file a reply. They sought an adjournment for two months but after considering the submissions of the appellants, the Commissioner fixed final hearing on 28/10/2009. Unfortunately, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he basis of which production capacity has been ascertained, does not belong to the appellants. Therefore, the matter be sent back to the Commissioner for re-adjudication after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellants. 7. On the other hand, Shri V.K. Singh, learned DR strongly opposed the contention of the learned advocate and submitted that on the principles of natural justice, the Commissioner has duly considered their request and only after giving three opportunities, relying on certain judicial pronouncements, he has passed a balanced order. Therefore, no opportunity of being heard be given to the appellants. On merits also, he submitted that being an SSI unit the appellants are required to file quarterly returns and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ured and these facts have been communicated to the Commissioner well in advance along with supporting evidence i.e. photographs, medical certificates, etc. and the Commissioner failed to consider the contention of the appellants for adjournment of the case and did not grant any further adjournment in the case. Thereafter, after two months, he passed the adjudication order. If the Commissioner had given an opportunity after two months to the appellants, the appellants could not have pleaded before this bench that no reasonable opportunity was given to the appellants.Therefore, we are of the opinion that principles of natural justice has been violated by the Commissioner while passing the order. Therefore, we are of the view that the matter s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
