9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shirolkar and Shri S.K. Mogia, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Sunil Kumar, AR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice Ajit Bharihoke, President]. These appeals are preferred against the order-in-original confirming duty demand of Rs. 30,85,63,593/- with interest against the appellant M/s. Golden Tobacco Ltd. and M/s. Chinar Cigarettes Pvt. Ltd. besides imposing penalty on various persons including the appellant. 2. These matters were originally listed for argument on stay applications moved by the appellants seeking waiver of the condition of pre-deposit of the duty demand and penalty. During the course of arguments Sh. L.P. Asthana, Advocate for the appellant submitted that the order has been passed in contravention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to supply copies of all the relied upon documents. It is submitted that from the above it is apparent that the Commissioner (Adjudication) has violated the stay order passed by the impugned order without supplying copies of relied upon documents to the appellant and this itself amounts to violation of principle of natural justice because non supply of documents have prevented the appellant to properly defend the show cause notice. Thus, ld. Counsel has urged that the appeal be accepted and matter be remanded back for de novo adjudication after complying with the direction of the High Court and also permitting the appellant to cross-examine the relevant witnesses whose statement the department wants to rely upon. 5. Sh. Sunil Kumar, ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall not be proceeded till the next date i.e. 7-11-2001. From the above, it is clear that stand of the department before the High Court was that the adjudication proceedings pending on 1-11-2001. Admittedly despite the undertaking given to the High Court, the Commissioner (Adjudication) has proceeded to sign the adjudication order-in-original on 7-11-2001. This amounts to violation of the undertaking given before the High Court. The plea of the respondent is that actually the adjudication order came into existence on 30-10-2001 when the Commissioner (Adjudication) approved the draft of the order-in-original in the administrative file and the date of order therefore is 30-10-2001 and not 7-11-2001 when the order was signed by the concerned C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
