9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (2) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not really necessary for us to go deep into the matter. 2. The respondent No. 1 is I.T.C. Limited. It appears, searches were made by the Director General of Inspection (Customs and Central Excise) in the premises of the first respondent on the basis of which he issued the proceedings called "Order-in-Original No. 1/1986 dated 10th April, 1986". In this order, he enunciated the principles appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable for paying the enhanced duty. It is this order which is challenged in this appeal. 3. Sri Bajpai, learned counsel for the Revenue says that the direction of the High Court to issue a show cause notice was not called for, inasmuch as the order dated July 17, 1986 was only a provisional one. He submits that sub-rule (5) or Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules does not provide for a fresh oppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectness or its validity shall not be questioned by the first respondent. So far as the directions made by the High Court are concerned, we are substantially in agreement with it. Before the first respondent is made liable for higher or enhanced duty, it must be told on what grounds it is sought to be made liable for additional duty and it must be given an opportunity of meeting those grounds. Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
