9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1080X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sposed off by a common order as the issue involved in all of them is identical. It is seen that in the first Appeal No.C/140/10, the appellant has already deposited an amount of Rs.25 lakhs out of the total confirmed duty of Rs.2,68,68,876/-. No deposit stand made in respect of other appeals. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that the present impugned order stand passed by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst advance licences without payment of duty. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated against them resulting in passing of an order by Commissioner confirming demands of duties against M/s Varsha Polyproducts and imposing penalties against various persons. 3. For the purposes of stay, we take into consideration the appellant s grievance of violation of principles of natural justice. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inasmuch as it appears that the said plea is nothing but delaying tactics adopted by the appellant. Vide his separate letter dt.20.02.09, the Assistant Commissioner directed the appellant to file the written submissions on or before 6.3.09. 4. Accordingly, the appellants filed detailed written submissions as also request for cross examination and personal hearing. It is seen that after wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned DR. Admittedly, the matters were remanded in 2002 and no action was taken on the same by Revenue till 2008. There is no reason for such delayed taking up of the de-novo proceedings. In fact, such un-explained delay on the part of the Revenue is the actual reason for delay in the adjudication proceedings. Further, admittedly no personal hearing was afforded to the appellant after they filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
