9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (8) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are liable to payment of excise duty from March 1, 1973 onwards. On December 12, 1974, the Officers of the Central Excise, intercepted a tempo at Sion Junction and on search 16 bundles of wire ropes valued at ₹ 12,000/- were found. The Central Excise Officers suspecting that the goods were removed without payment of excise duty, seized the same. The Officers recorded the statement of the driver of the tempo as well as its owner. Thereafter the petitioners were served with a show cause notice dated May 17, 1975 to show cause why the seized goods should not be confiscated and penalty should not be imposed for contravention of various rules of Central Excise. 3. The petitioners gave its reply on July 22, 1975 and inter alia claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, has raised two or three contentions to challenge the legality of the order. The first submission of the learned counsel is that though the Deputy Collector relied upon the statements of Abdul Karim Abbas, the driver of the tempo and Shri Hasan Babu Shaikh, the owner of the tempo to record the finding against the petitioners, the petitioners were deprived of the opportunity of cross-examining either of them. The learned counsel submitted that failure to give proper opportunity to cross-examine has resulted into violation of principles of natural justice. There is no merit in this submission. The record does not indicate that the petitioners were prevented from cross-examining these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the hearing was fixed on March 24, 1977 at Delhi and the petitioners may remain present with documents as the request for personal hearing has been granted. The petitioners sent a reply dated March 22, 1977 in which it is claimed that on an earlier hearing fixed at Bombay, the petitioners were sarcastically told that they would be heard for three days after the hearing is fixed at Delhi. The petitioners, by their reply, claimed that the date of hearing at Delhi should be changed and a fresh suitable date should be communicated to him. The grievance is that the revisional authority failed to comply with the request of the petitioners. There is no merit in this submission. In the return filed by the respondents sworn by Shri Bruno Gerald ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
