9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) 1.Heard Mr.P.R.Nanavati, the learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Jitendra Malkan appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities. 2. RULE. Mr.Malkan waives service. The petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today in light of the fact that the controversy lies in a very narrow compass. 3. This petition challenges the order in the form of commu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 25/8/2005. 5. There is no dispute as to the fact that the petitioner company is engaged in manufacturing optical fibre cable and for the said purpose, is registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act). That the petitioner has been assessed since inception under Tariff Entry No.8544.10 (subsequently re-numbered as 8544.70). For the purposes of manufacturing aforesaid product, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation dated 25/8/2005 (Annexure A ) has been served on the petitioner, followed up by communication dated 26/9/2005 (Annexure C-1 ), despite the fact that, till date, the investigation is in progress and is not complete. 7. Mr.Malkan, appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities, has tendered affidavit in reply dated 13/10/2005 and 25/10/2005 sworn by one Shri S.L.Ghule, Deputy Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f natural justice. In fact, during the course of hearing, Mr.Malkan failed to point out whether any show cause notice was given to the petitioner or whether the petitioner was heard before making the impugned order. To the contrary, the affidavit in reply dated 13/10/2005 itself records that the investigation is in progress and hence, copies of the statements of different persons recorded by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
