9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to them. 2. Petitioner suffered by an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-4, for recovery of a sum of Rs.14,38,174/- being the differential duty payable on account of finalization of provisional assessment for the year 2008-09 in terms of section 11A of the Central Excise Act together with interest. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed an appeal to the respondent in Appeal No.12/2010(M-IV) together with stay petition No.31/2012(M-II). The hearing of the appeal was fixed on 6.11.2012. On that date, petitioner sent a request through the advocate for adjournment in respect of the following 3 cases:- Sl.No. Name of the Applicant Appeal No. Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Technologies (India) Private Ltd., 443, Guna Complex, Anna Salai Teynampet, Chennai 600 018 represented by its General Manager (Finance) M. Nagakumar Vs. - The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) 26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road Chennai 600 034) contended that if the court is inclined to set aside the impugned order only on the ground that there is no proper hearing given to the petitioner, the petitioner may be directed to appear before the respondent on the next hearing date without fail and co-operate with the disposal of the stay petition. 5. I have considered the similar issue at length in W.P.No.31229 of 2012 and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) for reconsideration only on the ground th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. It is, therefore, apparent that the Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded to disregard the request of the petitioner for personal hearing despite the fact that the counsel has clearly sought time in view of the inability to appear on that particular date for this case on the ground that they are engaged before this Court. The petitioner also states that they have given intimation seeking adjournment on the above stated plea. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has been seeking adjournments frequently to avoid hearing. Unless and until it is shown that the conduct of the party is to avoid appearance without just or reasonable cause, there is no justification to decline grant of further time. On this score, the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
