9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the petitioner. Thus, the earlier adjournments even if taken by the petitioner does not answer its grievance that no notice for hearing was received by it and it had no knowledge of the hearing when the stay application was heard. Moreover, the impugned order does not deal with the petitioner's stay application with regard to financial difficulties/ hardship. if the notice of hearing has been received by him, he would have appeared before the Tribunal and produced the income tax returns for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 13 and 2013-14 which is produced before us to indicate that his income was approximately ₹ 16,000, ₹ 34,000 and ₹ 24,000 respectively for the last three years. In the above circumstances, it would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r extra ordinary jurisdiction in the peculiar facts of the case. 3 The Commissioner of Central Excise by an order dated 31 December 2012 has imposed a penalty of Rs.12.50 lakhs upon the petitioner for having aided and abeted M/s. Bhagyashali Textile Mills (P) Ltd., in evading exercise duty by clandestine removal of excisable goods. 4 Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal and the stay application before the Tribunal. In the stay application, besides pleading on merits, the petitioner also pointed out that they are not in a position to pay penalty amount as directed by the order dated 31 December 2012. Therefore, the stay of the order dated 31 December 2012 of the Commissioner of Central Excise was sought. 5 The Tribunal by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r had on earlier occasions sought adjournments and therefore the Tribunal was justified in proceeding with the hearing on 11 November 2013. 8 We have considered the rival submissions. We find from the impugned order that when the stay application was called out for hearing before the Tribunal, none appeared for the petitioner. The Tribunal also records that on four earlier occasions, the petitioner had sought adjournments which is disputed by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, we are not inclined to go into the above controversy. The fact is that on 11 November 2013, when the impugned order was passed, the petitioner was not represented and it is the case of the petitioner that no notice of hearing was received by the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
