9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V. Rama Krishnan, Chairman and Managing Director and Shri. S.N. Rajan, Director of the applicant-company under Section 112 of the Customs Act and under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The applicants are 100% EOU approved under EHTP (Electronic Hardware Technology Park) Scheme by the Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Development for the manufacture and export of copper clad laminates and pre pregs falling under sub-heading 7406 of CETA during the period June 1995 to October 1998. It has been alleged by a show-cause notice dated 5.12.2005 that the applicants had violated the post-import conditions of the Notification No. 13/81-Cus. read with Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He submits that it is a clear case that the adjudication order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and on this ground alone stay should be granted. He also submits that the official liquidator should have been made party in the proceedings before the adjudicating authority. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR submits that they have not filed any appeal against the demand of customs duty and therefore the present appeal filed under Central Excise Act, 1944 against the demand of customs duty is not maintainable. He submits that the show-cause notice was issued in 2005 along with four sets of relied upon documents, which were served on the Director of the company who are the applicants before this Tribunal. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. It is noted that after receipt of the show-cause notice, the applicant vide letter dated 4.1.2006 had not intimated the non-availability of the relied upon documents but they only requested for extension of time to file reply to the show-cause notice. However, they have not filed any reply to show-cause notice. We have also noticed that the jurisdictional Superintendent vide letter dated 6.4.2013 stated that in the factory location, there is no building or machinery belonging to the applicant but a housing project is being executed at that site by another company by name M/s. Akshaya Pvt. Ltd. We have also noticed that BIFR vide order dated 21.12.2011, recorded that the possession of the assets of applicant-company has been taken over b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
