9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ofar as violation of principles of natural justice is concerned. To start with, it is contended that the statement of Balakumar is not considered in total, whereas the Revenue has picked up only the selective part, which is not justified. Other than this, there is no denial by the lower authorities that the Joint Commissioner did not afford reasonable opportunities since according to the appellants, it was the Additional Commissioner who has seized of the matter and hence, it was incumbent upon the Joint Commissioner to afford reasonable opportunities as prescribed under the statute. Thirdly, the adjournment appears to have been sought for on the ground of appointing a counsel to defend their case, has not been considered. Every person has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similarly placed Appellants in the case of Maharaja Paper Board Pvt. Ltd. ( MPB for short), this Bench has dismissed the appeals filed by the Appellants there in, by upholding the impugned order there in; the Appellant herein is the one who got paper boards manufactured by the said MPB on job work basis who is alleged to have clandestinely removed paper boards. It was thus pleaded that fact of clandestine removal having been established, the duty has been demanded properly from the appellant and therefore, the appeals are required to be dismissed. 3. We have gone through the grounds of appeal placed in the appeal memorandum. It is the case of the appellants that the impugned order confirming the demand of Central Excise duty is liable to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n total and not in bits and pieces as done by the adjudicating authority. The appellant has also relied on various judicial precedents, as in paragraph 7 page 19. In a nutshell, it is contended that the impugned order has been passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice since the appellants had specifically requested for adjournment for engaging a counsel, but without rejecting the said request, the order has been passed and therefore, the said order is required to be set aside. This apart, it is also specifically contended that the period of demand is April 2006 to October 2007, the payment was made on 16.10.2007 for which the Show Cause Notice dated 23.12.2010 is clearly barred by limitation. 5. We have considered the gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order after affording reasonable opportunities to the appellants. The authority shall thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The Order in Original is passed in 2013, and hence, we are of the view that the allegation as to cross-examination of the officers would not serve any purpose since many of them might have been transferred or retired by now. Hence, we only direct the appellants to participate in the de-novo adjudication proceedings, ensure the completion of the same and thereby enable the original authority to pass a de-novo order within the time frame of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order by the concerned Commissionerate. 7. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals by w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
