9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2015 & MA/75732/2015 And Appeal No. C/76606/2014 & C/76607/14 - ORDER No. FO/A/75836-75837/2015 MO/76519-76520/2015 - Dated:- 16-12-2015 - DR. D.M.MISRA, (JUDICIAL) MEMBER AND SHRI H.K.THAKUR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Sri Shyamal Sarkar Sr. Adv. Sri A.D. Roy Adv. Sri Rajesh Gupta Adv., Advocate For the Respondent : Shri A. Kumar, A.C, (AR) ORDER Per Shri H.K.Thakur The present Miscellaneous applications and appeals have been filed by the appellants against OIO No. 171/KOL/APP/2009 dt 23/7/2014, issued on 30/7/2010, by Commissioner of Customs (Port) Kolkata. 2. Sh. Shyamal Sarkar (Sr Advocate), Sh. A.D. Roy (Advocate) and Sh. Rajesh Gupta (Advocate) appeared on behalf of the appellants. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Muriate of Potash or Potassium Feldspar. It was also submitted by the Learned senior Advocate that appellants has now got all the document after the order dt 26/11/14 was passed by Calcutta High Court. 3. Sh. A. Kumar AC (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that in the present proceedings Sh. Ashok Kumar Agarwal was summoned to appear before DRI Kolkata Zonal Unit but he did not turn up for giving his statement. That Sh. Ashok Agarwal later appeared before DRI Ahmedabad in his statement dt 27/1/10, 28/1/10, 16/4/10, 17/4/10 25/11/10 has given detailed information about the modus operandi for procuring Muriate of Potash illegally to export the same in the guise of Potassium Feldspar. That E-mail correspondence between M/s Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... teps are taken against the writ petitioners till the tribunal takes any decision. 4.1 The period of disposal of the case was further extended up to 31/12/2015 by subsequent orders of Hon ble High Court. 5. It is observed from the case records that last personal hearing was fixed by the Adjudicating authority on 24/6/2014. Appellants made a written request for adjournment as that day was being observed as a protest day by the Bar Council of West Bengal. Allahabad High Court in the case of Trimurti Fragrance Pvt Ltd Vs CCE Kanpur [2005 (189) ELT 129 (All.)] on the issue of adjournment framed the following question:- 2. The substantial questions of law, arising in the present appeal (added by way of amendment under our order passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard his case or not, one should not ordinarily go beyond the date on which adjournment is sought for. The earlier adjournment, if any, granted would certainly be for reasonable grounds and that aspect need not be once again examined if on the date on which adjournment is sought for the party concerned has a reasonable ground. The mere fact that in the past adjournments had been sought for would not be of any materiality. If the adjournment had been sought for on flimsy grounds the same would have been rejected. Therefore, in our view, the High Court as well as the learned District Judge and the Rent Controller have all missed the essence of the matter. 5.2 Appellants have also relied upon several case laws on the merits of the case law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
