9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al) Mr A. Rangadham A.R. for the Appellant Mr Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal, Adv for the Respondent. ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY Revenue has assailed the impugned order dated 16/12/2008 passed by the learned Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals-III), Hyderabad on the ground that change in classification of subject goods in the adjudication order dated 10.12.2018 is not proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assified under different tariff heading, than the classification made by the respondent in the bills of entry, presented for assessment. In this context, he has referred to paragraph 9 in the original order dated 10.12.2008 to state that the request made by the respondents for grant of opportunity of personal hearing for cross examination of the concerned department officers has not been considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "9. Shri Prabhu Dayal, Representative of the Importer appeared for personal hearing on 08/12/2008 and requested to examine/cross-examine the Shed Inspector/Appraising Officer who concluded the item at Sl. No.1 of the Bill of Entry as TV but not Computer Monitor. On rejection of his request, he said that he could connect the monitor to the System and show it working. Then, he read out the TV guide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fact that the goods in question imported by it should appropriately be classifiable under CTH mentioned in the bill of entry. Thus, it is a classic case that the matter was adjudicated against the respondent by denying the principle of natural justice. In this context, the law is well settled that the matter cannot be adjudicated behind the back of the importer and importer should be given adeq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
