9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty liability admitted by the petitioner - Held that:- The petitioner, having appeared and agreed initially to additional duty liability of 10,79,898/- and the commission, having passed an order directing them to pay the amount and the same having been complied with, on 13-6-2005, and subsequently, the petitioner, having been appeared twice before the Commission and having not appeared for only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Shri E. Vijay Anand, for the Respondent. ORDER The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission, dated 9-1-2008. 2. The petitioner is a Textile Mill and they filed an application under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for settlement of the proceedings initiated against them, vide show cause notice, dated 27-1-2004 by the Add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner did not cooperate. 3. On a perusal of Paragraph 3 of the order passed by the Commission, it is seen that the case was listed for final hearing on 3-4-2007 and the petitioner's counsel, by letter, dated 30-3-2007 requested for adjournment and the matter was posted, on 28-5-2007, on which date, the learned counsel for the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Commission and having not appeared for only one occasion, ought not to have been penalized by passing the impugned order. 5. It is to be noted that, three adjournments were granted by the Commission, for the reasons not attributable to the writ petitioner. One adjournment was granted on the ground that the departmental representative did not appear and two adjournments were granted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
