9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal, but in our view, Question Nos. 1 and 2, which are reproduced hereunder, would suffice for disposing of the present appeal. "Q.1 Whether the Ld. CESTAT, Mumbai was right in passing the order dated 16.11.2017 in absence of the Appellant recording only the arguments/submissions of the Department without looking into the case/defense of the Appellant already available on record? Q2. Whether the Ld. CESTAT, Mumbai could pass an order on "Merits" without adverting to the case/defense of the Appellant already argued and on record of the Ld. CESTAT?" 3. Brief facts are as under:- (i) In 1999, the DRI, Mumbai examined six consignments where bill of entry was not filed and a case of misdeclaration was made by the DRI based on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereunder:- "3. After considering the facts of the case and the submissions of both sides and examining the documents referred to by the Counsel, we are of the view that waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery should be granted in respect of the penalties in question. Most of these appellants did not file any bill of entry. Two bills of entry were filed in the name of J.N. Exports International, of which one of the appellants was the proprietor. However, this appellant has totally disclaimed the bills of entry. No misdeclaration of any goods was found in these bills of entry, a fact not contested by the SDR today. Apparently, all the appellants can legitimately claim support from the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal. The penalties are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e absence of his appearance before the Tribunal since the request for adjournment was rejected, the Tribunal accepted the submissions made by the revenue without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Appellant to rebut the same. The Appellant, therefore, pleaded that the matter may be restored to the file of the Tribunal for fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing. 6. The Respondent contended that several adjournments were sought by the Appellant and, therefore, the Appellant cannot contend that opportunity of hearing was not granted. The counsel for the Respondent, therefore, vehemently objected to the matter being remanded back to the Tribunal. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
