9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant is that no effective personal hearing was extended to them inasmuch as three consecutive dates of hearing was given by the adjudicating authority without affording time for them to attend the personal hearing and defend their case. Also, the ld. Advocate argued that M/s. Premier Polyspin Pvt. Limited and Shri Rohit Dharamprakash Gupta were neither given the relied upon documents nor un-relied upon documents retrieved from their premises were returned to them so as to prepare their reply to show cause notice and submit before the adjudicating authority. Cumulatively, thus the crux of the argument is, there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I am of the opinion tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e involved in all these Appeals are common, these are taken up together for disposal. 2. Briefly stated the facts of case are that on investigation by way of search conducted at the premises of M/s. Sunshine Overseas( 100% EOU) it was found that the said Appellant had though shown to have received raw materials i.e. Polyester Knitted Fabrics and POY from M/s. Premier Polyspin Pvt. Limited, but the said transaction was only a paper transaction and they had in fact not received the said raw material in their factory and used it in the manufacture of finished goods for export. Consequently, a demand notice was issued to M/s. Premier Polyspin Pvt. Limited for recovery of the duty not paid at the time of clearnce and proposal for equal amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 19.05.2005. Consequently, neither they could file reply to the show cause notice nor participate in the adjudication proceeding. In the case of other appellants M/s. Sunshine Overseas, Shri Haroon Razaq Chhaya, Shri Irfan Gulam Rasool Saiyed and Shri Rashid Sadatli Saiyed even though had filed their reply to the show cause notice, they had not received any communication about the date of personal hearing from the adjudicating authority. Besides, three consecutive dates of hearing was mentioned in the same hearing notice as is evident from the finding of the Commissioner. Thus it is clear that the Order was passed without affording sufficient opportunity to the appellants to appear for personal hearing. Also, he has submitted that the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xported. In confirming the demand against the appellants M/s. Premier Polyspin Pvt. Limited, the adjudicating authority considered evidences mainly in the form of statements, which the appellants claimed to be not reliable and sought cross-examination of Shri Haroon Razaq Chhaya, Shri Irfan Gulam Rasool Saiyed and Shri Rashid Sadatli Saiyed. Also, the grievance of the appellant is that no effective personal hearing was extended to them inasmuch as three consecutive dates of hearing was given by the adjudicating authority without affording time for them to attend the personal hearing and defend their case. Also, the ld. Advocate argued that M/s. Premier Polyspin Pvt. Limited and Shri Rohit Dharamprakash Gupta were neither given the relied up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
