9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand of duty of Rs.4,09,455/- has been confirmed under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('Act') and an equivalent penalty has also been imposed under Section 173Q(bb) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ('Rules'). 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the impugned order was passed almost nine months after the conclusion of the hearing. This delay in passing the impugned order, the Petitioner submits, has led to serious prejudice to it. This is so as the impugned order does not discuss and/or consider the various submissions made by the Petitioner during the hearing leading to a demand which itself is not sustainable. Our attention was particularly drawn to an application for additional grounds made before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be dismissed. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the Parties. In the present case, the personal hearing was concluded on 17 September 2012 and the written submissions were filed by the Petitioner on 24 September 2012. The impugned order was passed on 31 July 2013 i.e. almost nine months after the hearing. This delay has resulted in the Petitioner's submissions of goods being returned within 180 days not being considered. This evidence was sought to be brought on record before the Tribunal but not allowed. However, this Court by its order dated 14 September 2010, while remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority, had left all issues open. Therefore, the above evidence, which was available before the Adjudicating Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore them as expeditiously as possible after the conclusion of the hearing. This alone would ensure that all the submissions made by a party are considered in the order passed and ensure that the litigant also has a satisfaction of noting that all his submissions have been considered and an appropriate order has been passed. It is most important that the litigant must have complete confidence in the process of litigation and that this confidence would be shaken if there is excessive delay between the conclusion of the hearing and delivery of judgment. 7. Therefore, in this case, we find that the delay by the Adjudicating Authority in rendering its order nine months after the conclusion of the hearing has caused prejudice to the Petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
