9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icularly the earlier exparte order passed on account of non cooperation of the Appellants in disposal of the show cause notice by the Commissioner. This lead to the order of the Tribunal dated 24th September, 2007 setting aside the order dated 11th April, 2007 and restoring the notices to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication. We would have expected the parties to have cooperated with the adjudicating proceeding. It must be borne in mind that the principles of natural justice, is not a one way street. It does not require the authority to keep adjourning the hearing till such time as the party condescends to attend the hearing and make submission. So far as the submission that no reasons were indicated in the Commissioner's order dated 18th December, 2007 rejecting the cross examination, cannot be accepted. This for the reason that the application which was made on 10th December, 2007 seeking cross examination gave no reasons as to why the cross examination of the investigating offices, audit officers and jurisdictional range officers are necessary for appropriate disposal of the notices, bearing in mind that they are not the witnesses upon which the show cause notices w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contravention of the Act. On receipt of the two show cause notices, the Appellants herein had approached the Settlement Commission. However, the Settlement Commission rejected the applications of the Appellants. This on the ground that there was no full and true disclosure of duty liability made by the Appellants. Consequent thereto, the proceeding before the adjudicating authority stood revived. The adjudicating authority i.e. Commissioner relating to the above two notices dated 9th March, 2004 and 11th March, 2004 made repeated requests to the Appellants by letters dated 12th June, 2006, 10th July, 2006, 24th August, 2006 and 8th November, 2006 to file their replies to the show cause notice dated dated 9th March, 2004 and 11th March, 2004. However, the Appellants chose not to file the reply. Therefore, the Commissioner of Central fixed the matter for personal hearing on 14th December, 2006, 19th January, 2007, 20th February, 2007 and 14th March, 2007. However, the Appellants chose not to appear for personal hearing on any of the above dates nor did any of them file any reply to the two show cause notices. This lead to order dated 11th April, 2007 being passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On 20th December, 2007 the Appellants did not attend the office of the Commissioner. This resulted in the Commissioner giving a fresh date of hearing i.e. 30th January, 2008. However, on 30th January, 2008, the Appellants sought time on the ground of ill health of the counsel resulting in the appeal being adjourned to 7th February, 2008. On 5th February, 2008 the Appellants vide letter informed the Commissioner that the refusal to grant cross examination and denial of the documents and data as sought for, has left to the Petitioners with no option but to file Petition to this Court and requested the Commissioner to adjourn the hearing fixed on 7th February, 2008 till this Court decides the issue. But, on 15th February, 2008 and 19th February, 2008 the Commissioner of Central Excise disposed of two show cause notices dated 9th March, 2004 and 11th March, 2004 confirming the same and imposing penalty upon the Appellants. 5. Being aggrieved, with the orders dated 15th February, 2008 and 19th February, 2008, the Appellants filed Appeals to the Tribunal. The impugned order dated 16th January, 2018 of the Tribunal while dismissing the Appeals records the fact that the challenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess, the Tribunal set aside the order dated 11th April, 2007 of the Commissioner and restored it to him for filing adjudication after deposit of ₹ 15 lakhs. Moreover, the Tribunal directed the Appellants not to seek any adjournment, on grant of personal hearing. The Commissioner of Central Excise granted to the Appellants personal hearing, but the Appellants not appear at the hearing on three consecutive dates i.e. 20th December, 2007, 30th January, 2008 and 7th February, 2008. In fact, on 20th December, 2007 the Appellants did not even seek adjournment but just remained absent, yet in fairness the Commissioner granted a fresh hearing to the Appellants on 30th January, 2008. However, on 30th July, 2008 the Appellants could not attend the hearing because of ill health of the advocate appearing for them. So far as the hearing on 7th February, 2008 is concerned the Appellants sought time on the ground that it had challenged the Commissioner's order dated 18th December, 2007 not giving cross examination. Therefore, the submission that the Commissioner ought to have awaited for the decision of this Court on the Petitioners' challenge to the order of the Commissioner refusi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
