9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sanjeev Srivastava, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - Shri V. Sridharan, the ld. Advocate appearing for the Applicants, at the outset submits that the Applicants were not given an opportunity of presenting their case effectively. He submitted that some dates were given by the ld. Commissioner, but since the regular Counsel of the Applicants was undergoing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and penalty may be waived and the case may be remanded to the lower authorities for giving the applicants an opportunity of being heard in person to present their case. 3. The ld. Counsel undertakes to cooperate in the case so that the proceedings are completed within a period of two months. The ld. Counsel further submits that he would like to cross-examine not all the 21 persons whose stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts did not avail. He, therefore, submits that the applicants may be directed to deposit the entire amount of duty and penalty involved in the case. 5. Heard the submissions of both sides. We find that, no doubt, on paper, two days were fixed for hearing, but in effect, the hearings did not materialise inasmuch as the regular Counsel for the Applicants was undergoing surgery and on account o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide the impugned order and remand the case for de novo adjudication. However, as the stakes involved are very high and also in view of the ld. Counsel's undertaking to cooperate in the matter and expedite the hearings as well as limiting cross- examination to only 3 witness as mentioned above, we direct the adjudicating Commissioner concerned to decide the matter before 31st May, 1998 after giving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
