9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (1) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This is a Revision Application by M/s Subhash Embroidery Works which has been transferred to the Tribunal for disposal as an appeal under the provisions of Section 131B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Sarees and fabrics valued at about ₹ 32,000 were recovered from the business and residential premises of the appellant on 30-4-1974. The case was adjudicated by the Deputy Collector of Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by affidavit. An undated letter was received from the Appellate Collector in June, 1980 rejecting the application and directing that 50% of the penalty should be paid, failing which the appeal shall be rejected. On 19-6-1980 the appellants submitted that they were already under heavy debt and it would not be possible for them to collect the amount of ₹ 25,000/- and pay the penalty . They a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted the Counsel is, therefore, improper. The last ground made out by the Counsel was that the order is a non-speaking order. 4. The Senior Departmental Representative submitted that the original records not being available, he would not be able to controvert the facts submitted by the Counsel regarding asking and granting of a personal hearing. The order gives the ground of non-compliance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g was independently made. However, when the appellant produced evidence of financial inability and asked for a hearing, it would be reasonable for grounds to be given why such evidence was not wholly acceptable or why a personal hearing was not considered necessary. In this sense, the order cannot be said to be a speaking order. 6. In the present appeal, considering the value of the goods, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
