9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds of appeal on record. 3. Shri D.B. Shroff, learned counsel for the appellants appeared and submitted that the appellants were not given a reasonable opportunity to defend their case and while filing the appeal they could not plead this ground in their appeal memo, therefore, the application for additional ground be taken on record and be allowed. After hearing the learned advocate, we find that the additional ground taken in this miscellaneous application are legal one and therefore the miscellaneous application for bringing additional grounds on record is allowed. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, on intelligence by DGCEI, investigation was conducted at the premises of the appellants and certain documents were seized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority as the appellant met with an accident wherein both the legs are fractured and the doctor advised him to take three months complete bed rest, therefore, the matter be adjourned for three months but the Commissioner did not consider the request of the appellant and considering that none appeared on the date fixed i.e. on 28/10/2009, and passed the order on the basis of available records in the file.Against that order the appellants are in appeal on the ground that the Commissioner while adjudicating the matter, has violated the principles of natural justice as no reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the appellants. 6. Shri D.B. Shroff, learned advocate further submitted that the appellants are having a strong case on merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment is having a strong case, therefore, the appellants should be asked to make some pre-deposit at this stage and thereafter the matter may be sent back to the adjudicating authority for adjudication. To support his contentions he rely upon the decision in the case of Shiv Sewa Sadan vs. CESTAT, New Delhi 2010 (254) ELT 249 (P&H) and Shri Balaji Rolling Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE,Goa Order No. S/ 91-93/WZB/MUM/2009/CSTB/C-II dated 05/03/2009. 8. Heard and considered. 9. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. Thereafter, we find that after issuance of the show-cause notice the first hearing was fixed on 20/08/2009 for which the appellants claim is that they have received the notice on 20/08/2009 but the records shows that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fix the date for final hearing of the matter. On appearance before the Commissioner, the Commissioner shall fix a date for final hearing in consultation with the appellant. (b) Thereafter,no further opportunity be given to the appellants and in that proceedings if the appellant/his authorised representative is not able to appear before the Commissioner to represent the case within the period given as per Clause (a) above. (c) If the appellant wish to file reply to show-cause notice, the appellant shall file the said reply on or before the date fixed by the Commissioner. 10. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, we remand the matter back to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication as directed herein above. It is pertine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
