9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n any order of adjudication. Therefore, nothing prevented from the Department to issue the second show cause notice in respect of the same period and the same products. The respondents afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Three sets of dates for hearing were fixed for the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice. The petitioner did not avail of such opportunities. The authorities proceeded not to grant further adjournment on March 13, 2018 - no infirmity in the refusal of the authorities in not granting further adjournment given the conduct of the petitioner and given the number of opportunities granted to the petitioner to contest the claim. The impugned order cannot be said to have been passed ex pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same products as that of the impugned show cause notice. A period in excess twelve years having elapsed from the show cause notice dated July 27, 2005 as also from the impugned show cause notice, the petitioner reasonably believed that, the proceedings against the petitioner stood dropped. The petitioner received the first notice of hearing in respect of the impugned show cause notice on February 7, 2018. On such date an adjournment was prayed for and was granted. The next date of hearing was fixed for February 15 and 16, 2018. On such dates also the petitioner approached the adjudicating authority for adjournments. The petitioner asked for a copy of the impugned show cause notice, as the same was not readily available in the records of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the petitioner presses the point of breach of principles of natural justice. The impugned order is the result of show cause notice dated January 3, 2006. The show cause notice dated January 3, 2006 relates to the period from December 2002 to February 2003 and is in respect of various manufactured products termed by the petitioner as the semi finished goods, namely, Tinters, Alkyd Medium and Synthetic Medium. There is a previous show cause notice issued by the Department dated July 27, 2005 making similar allegations in respect of two products for the period from July 2002 to March 31, 2004. The earlier show cause notice dated July 27, 2005 did not result in any order of adjudication. Therefore, nothing prevented from the Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I find no infirmity in the refusal of the authorities in not granting further adjournment given the conduct of the petitioner and given the number of opportunities granted to the petitioner to contest the claim. In such circumstances, the impugned order cannot be said to have been passed ex parte. Electronics Corporation of India Ltd is a case where the writ petition was found maintainable notwithstanding the impugned order being appealable and the time period for preferring the appeal found to have been expired. In the facts of the present case, I find that, the petitioner is unable to substantiate the allegations of breach of principles of natural justice. Therefore, there is no material before the Writ Court to intervene under Arti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
