9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eli, in three appeals, two filed by M/s. V.K. Palappa Nadar Firm [Proprietorship of Shri K. Ammaiyappan] and one by M/s. V.K.P.K. Arivithurai and Brothers, against three Orders-in-Original by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli. The original authority had, in adjudication of two show-cause notices, confirmed demands of duty of ₹ 38,78,1417- and ₹ 48,74,828/- against M/s. V.K. Palappa Nadar Firm and M/ s. V.K.P.K. Arivithurai and Brothers/ respectively and had also imposed on them penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Separate penalties under Rules 209A and 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were also imposed respectively on the said parties. The orders of the original authority were u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noticee did not avail themselves of these opportunities. They were also evading the opportunities given of personal hearing. In the circumstances, it was argued, it could not be said that principles of natural justice were denied to the appellants. In this connection, ld. SDR relied on the Allahabad High Court's judgment in Modipon Ltd. vs. CCE - 2002 (744) ELT 267 (All), wherein the High Court had held as under:- It may be recalled here that the requirement of natural justice varies from cases to cases and situations to situations. Court cannot insist that under all circumstances personal hearing has to be afforded. Quasi-judicial authorities are expected to apply their judicial mind over the grievances made by the persons co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied-upon documents were not supplied. Even the non-re lied upon documents were not returned. It has been claimed by the appellant's counsel that they wanted to rely upon some of these documents to rebut the allegations in the show-cause notices. Only after making copies of these documents available to the parties could it be said that an effective opportunity had been given to them for presenting their case before the adjudicating authority. In view of this matter, we are convinced that the adjudicating authority had not rendered natural justice to the parties. 3. Yet another objection raised by the appellant's counsel is that what they received from the lower appellate authority was an unsigned copy of the impugned order, attes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
