9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . [Order]. - This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 18-5-2004 which dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants purchased running factory from Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation by an agreement dated 24-1-1998. The appellants applied for registration and got the registration in the year 1998. Sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pportunity to defend their case before the Adjudicating authority despite the fact that they were registered with the department. It is his submission that the adjudication order was passed subsequent to the registration taken by appellants. He also submits that any liability which accrues on him subsequent to taking over has to be done so with his participation. 4. Learned D.R. submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence of Orders-in-Original dated 22-10-91 and 30-9-2002 and liability of duty and penalty. The appellants have been protesting this liability on the ground that they were not made party to the proceedings which took place subsequent to their obtaining the registration certificate. I find force in the appellants' contention that if any liability which has to be fastened upon the appellants, should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings is correct legal proposition. In view of this fact, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the orders-in-original dated 23-10-2001 and 30-9-2002 do not pertain to the appellants, and hence, they have to be considered as not fixing any liability on the appellants. Further, the appellants have accepted to participate in the proceedings before the lower authorities. Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
