TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der]. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of penalty amount of Rs. 2 lakhs I take up the appeal itself for disposal. 2. Shri P.K. Sengupta, ld. Consultant along with Shri Aftab Ahmed ld. Advocate appeared for the appellants and submitted that the case has been adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), W.B., Calcutta without providing any sufficient opportunity of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the entire position and as such was very much relevant to the appellant s defence. He submits that though the adjudicating authority records that a xerox copy of the baggage tag was given to them, but in effect the copy of some other tag was given and not the claimed tag. Drawing my attention to serial number 24 of the seizure list he submits that two types of baggage tags i.e. one checked bagga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le which has been called from the Commissionerate as per the directions of the Bench during the previous hearings. It is clearly written on the file that nobody appeared for hearing on 8-10-1998. As such it cannot be said that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. As regards the supply of the baggage tag ld. JDR submits that it is very clearly recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s making a prayer for supply of. There is nothing on record to show that this baggage tag was supplied to them. In any case I find that the impugned Order has been passed without hearing the appellant. When the appellant has made a request for deferring the date of hearing vide their letter dated 5-10-1998 on the ground of non-supply of the said baggage tag it was the duty of the adjudicating auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
