9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statutory records consequently a show cause notice dated 26-6-76 was issued to the petitioners to show cause as to why on 18,37,976 Kgs. nylon yarn alleged to have been manufactured and cleared surreptitiously in a manner other than as provided under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short the Rules) excise duty should not be demanded under Rule 9(2) and 173-Q of the Rules at the rates applicable to the lowest denier attracting the highest rate of duty. The amount of duty thus demanded works out to Rs. 6,25,70,000.50 (Rupees six crores, twenty five lacs, seventy thousand and paise fifty only) and further as to why a penalty should not be imposed on them under Rules 9(2), 52A and 173Q of the Rules and also as to why the land, building, plant and machinery used in the manufacture and production of nylon yarn should not be confiscated under Rule 173Q of the Rules. Copies of all documents which were proposed to be taken into account in the matter were supplied to the petitioner. Instead of filing reply to the show cause notice, petitioners sought repeated extensions for submission of reply and demanded informations and documents etc. which had no relevance with the issues involv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thereafter on 7-11-78 a copy of the inspection report of the Deputy Chief Chemist was supplied to the petitioners and on 18-8-82 petitioners were served with a notice that the case will be taken up on 8-9-82 before the respondent no. 1 and if the petitioners want to add to their submissions made earlier, they may appear in person before the respondent no. 1 on 8-9-82. It was also made clear in that notice that if petitioners failed to appear on 8-9-82, the case will be decided on merits. 7.On 7-9-82 on behalf of petitioners it was informed that their advocate looking after their case was not in India and had gone abroad therefore, adjournment of the case for the next month was sought. The respondent no. 1 refusing the prayer of adjournment proceeded with this case holding that this case relates to the year 1976 and number of opportunities have already been afforded to the petitioners to put up their case, all the relevant documents have been supplied to the petitioners and their detailed submissions are already on the record and the case involves huge revenue to the tune of more than Rs. six crores and having afforded full opportunity of being heard to the petitioner the case can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of the matter at page 20 and 21 of his judgment and arrived at the finding that the Rule 10 related to short levy and not to non-levy of duty due to clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty in contravention of Rules 9(1), 52A, 173G(2) and 173Q(a)(b) and (d) and accordingly he arrived at the conclusion that present show cause notice is not time barred under Rule 10 read with Rule 173-J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Thus, the preliminary issue has been decided by the respondent no. 1 on page 21 of his order. We see no infirmity in the reasons assigned and conclusion arrived at by the respondent no. 1. Accordingly first contention raised by learned counsel for petitioner is repelled. 13.As regards the second contention for petitioners that the copy of the report and figures of production have not been supplied to the petitioners, we would like to refer the order of this Court dated 16-8-78. In the order of this Court itself it was made clear that the respondent will issue summons for the production of such documents as may be specified by the petitioner by making an application in this behalf. Learned counsel for the petitioners failed to establish before this Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e already afforded to the petitioners. The petitioners filed detailed submissions to the show cause notice by their letter dated 20-9-76. Thereafter they requested for personal hearing. Thereafter 2-12-77 was fixed for personal hearing. On 2-12-1977 Sri V.K. Singhal, Administrative Manager of the factory appeared for personal hearing and submitted written submissions. 8-12-77 was also fixed for personal hearing. Petitioners wanted further opportunity then 2-1-78 was fixed for personal hearing, when written submissions were filed with further request to give them another opportunity. Thereafter again 27-1-78 was fixed when the petitioners submitted written submissions. Thereafter petitioners were requested as to whether they wanted to add anything to their submissions already made and if yes, to do so before 8-9-82, and 8-9-82 was fixed for personal hearing. By a letter dated 18-8-82 it was made clear that if the petitioners failed to appear on 8-9-82 the case will be decided on merits ex parte. The petitioners did not say anything about adding to their submissions already made. However, by their letter dated 7-9-82 they sought adjournment on the ground of non-availability of their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f natural justice and fair play are safeguards for the flow of justice and not the instruments for delaying the proceedings and thereby obstructing the flow of justice. In the instant case as stated in detail in preceding paragraphs, repeated adjournments were granted to the petitioners, dates after dates were fixed for personal hearing, petitioners filed written submissions, the administrative officer of the factory appeared for personal hearing and filed written submissions, therefore, in the opinion of this Court there is sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice as adequate opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners. 20.For the sake of arguments it was asked by this Court during the course of arguments as to what submissions the petitioners would have made at the time of personal hearing but nothing substantial was suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard. 21.It may be recalled here that the requirement of natural justice varies from cases to cases and situations to situations. Courts cannot insist that under all circumstances personal hearing has to be afforded. Quasi-judicial authorities are expected to apply their j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
