9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded to pass an ex parte order. We are therefore of the opinion that it is in the interest of justice that the impugned orders which are passed by the Revisionary Authority without granting an opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case, cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Writ Petition Nos. 316 & 197 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 5-3-2014 - S.C. Dharmadhikari and G.S. Kulkarni, JJ. Shri D.N. Nadkarni @ V.N. Ansurkar i/b. Legal Solutions, for the Petitioner. Shri A.S. Rao @ J.B. Mishra, for the Respondent. ORDER These two writ petitions one filed by the partnership firm and the other by the partner of the firm challenge the common order dated 31-7-2013 passed by the Joint Secretary (Revision Applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods were not exported. A show cause notice dated 29-12-2004 was issued for recovery of duty with interest and also penal provisions were invoked. The show cause notice was adjudicated by an order-in-original dated 19-5-2005 which confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 4,79,038/- with interest and imposed penalty of ₹ 1,20,000/- under Rule 25 on the firm. A personal penalty of ₹ 30,000/- under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules was also imposed on the partner of the petitioner-firm. The said order-in-original was challenged by the petitioners in appeals filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) by an order dated 21-2-2006 rejected the appeals filed by the petitioners, against which the petitioners had prefe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules, 2002 to ₹ 50,000/- and the penalty imposed on the partner of the firm was reduced to ₹ 15,000/-. The order-in-original was accordingly modified to that extent. These orders of the Revisionary Authority are under challenge in these writ petitions. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a principal grievance that the impugned order has been passed ex parte. He submitted that in regard to the listing of the matter before the Revisionary Authority on 4-3-2013 and 27-6-2013 Mr. Panchamatia, partner of M/s. Avni Dresses had not appeared and had requested for an adjournment by addressing two letters dated 21-2-2013 and 18-6-2013 in which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
