9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n availed by the petitioner. It is also seen that the petitioner has not produced any list of witnesses whom they intend to cross examine. In these circumstances, it can be said that sufficient opportunities were extended to the petitioner, which was not availed by them, within a reasonable time - Since the respondents had granted sufficient opportunities to the petitioner, it is held that there is no violation of principles of natural justice and hence setting aside the impugned order will not be proper. Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - HELD THAT:- Section 35(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides for an appeal against the impugned order to the CESTAT within a period of three months from the date of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neither granted permission nor rejected the same, but had passed the impugned order. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an opportunity to cross examination should be granted to them. 3.The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that various opportunities to file their reply as well as the personal hearing was extended to the petitioner and inspite of the same, he has not availed these opportunities. Since the order was passed after 15 months from the show cause notice and the entire period of 15 months was only at the instance of the petitioner, it can only be said that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity and therefore it will not amount to violation of the principles of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nths even to file reply on the ground that some of the statements were obtained under duress. As the petitioner had been granted sufficient time to reply, no more extension was given and a personal hearing was fixed before taking up the adjudication. Accordingly, a communication was sent to the petitioner asking to appear for hearing before the respondent on 26.3.2002. The petitioner by their letter dated 24.3.3003 informed that the reply was under preparation. Since the relied upon documents were voluminous they were not able to reply in time with an indication to cross-examine some of the witnesses, but list of persons who were to be cross examined were also not given, and the petitioner sought for five more months time to file reply. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and hence their participation in the enquiry proceedings is not proper. This shows that the petitioner had not availed the opportunities allowed to defend the notice. As stated in the affidavit, had not given any tabulated statement of list of dates. The averment of the petitioner is totally and factually not in order. The petitioner were afforded adequate opportunity to defend themselves and have purposely failed to avail the same solely with an intension of dragging on the proceedings. 5.No reply statement has been filed opposing such a statement made in the counter affidavit. As such it is seen that the petitioner was granted opportunity at least on four occasions which have not been availed by the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
