9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent culminating in his order C. No. V/73.08/15/3/90, Adjourned, dated 8-8-1991 to quash the same and to remand the matter with a direction to the first respondent to give the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, copies of the replies of respondents 2 and 3 and a joint hearing of all parties. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in this case, the first respondent has violated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authority was not correct in invoking the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had requested the first respondent to decide the case subject to the submissions made by him. 4.The first and foremost point argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the petitioners were not heard again when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjourned hearing in continuation to one which is initially commenced is distinct from an adjourned hearing in alternation or in alteration to one originally started and while in the former case, a notice only of the first hearing is essential, in the latter case, a further notice is necessary as soon as the body of the tribunal proceedings with the hearing decides to change the items of any char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As the replies filed by respondents 2 and 3 have not been relied upon, I see no ground to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the principles of natural justice have been violated. 9.The first respondent has found that there was deliberate suppression of fact and wilful mis-statement on the part of the petitioners with an intent to evade payment of duty. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
