9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent in Central Excise Appeal No.67 of 2019. P.C.: 1. These four Appeals filed under section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) challenge the order dated 16th January, 2018 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The common impugned order dated 16th January, 2018 disposed of four Appeals before the Tribunal. Thus, the four Appeals before us. 2. The Appellants urged the following identical question of law for our consideration in all the four Appeals. (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not giving any finding on the submission of the Appellants that the Order in Original dated 15th February, 2008 was passed ex-parte without conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notices. This lead to order dated 11th April, 2007 being passed by the Commissioner confirming the demands made in the show cause notices and also imposing penalties upon the Appellants. Aggrieved by the order dated 11th April, 2007 of the Commissioner, the Appellants filed an Appeal to the Tribunal. By an order dated 24th September, 2007 the Tribunal set aside the order dated 11th April, 2007 and restored the notices dated 9th March, 2004 and 11th March, 2004 for reconsideration by the Commissioner of Central Excise. However, whilst passing the above order dated 24th September, 2007 the Tribunal observed as under: "As such, we are of the opinion that perhaps there may be no merits, in this case. But since the order is an ex-parte order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re us that on 11th December, 2007 the Commissioner was not available for granting the hearing even though the Appellants did appear in the office of the Commissioner of the Central Excise. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal dismissed the Appeals of the Appellants. 6. The Appellants have now challenged the impugned order dated 16th July, 2018 in these Appeals. 7. Mr. Prakash Shah, learned counsel for the Appellants submit that the impugned order of the Tribunal is unsustainable in law as it fails to consider the fact that before rejecting the application for adjournment of personal hearing, the Commissioner should have given reasons to the Appellants as to why the adjournment has been refused. This not having been done, make the subject proceedings bad in law. Further, it is submitted that no reasons have been accorded by the Commissioner in its letter dated 18th December, 2007 for refusing the cross examination sought by the Appellants in its l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 refusing cross examination. This cannot be accepted. If the Appellants were so concerned about the fact that the cross examination was necessary, in the facts of the present case, they ought to have moved the Court and sought urgent interim relief, from the Court before the hearing and disposal of the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notices were issued/relied. 10. In any case, the orders of the Commissioner dated 15th February, 2008 and 19th February, 2008 record reasons for non giving of cross examination. Moreover, both the above orders dated 15th February, 2008 and 19th February, 2008 also record the fact that the data obtained on the floppies was returned back to the Appellants on 14th September, 2008 during the course of the investigation under proper acknowledgement. These findings of the Commissioner were not a subject matter of specific challenge before the Tribunal as is clear from the impugned order of the Tribunal. The impugned order of the Tribunal finds that the the documents relied upon by the revenue were given to the Appellants along with sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
