9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. JUDGMENT Ext. P7 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of plywood, veneer etc. The petitioner's factory is situated in Vettickal. 3. The petitioner alleges that on 26-3-2007, search was conducted by the officers attached to the Director General ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led an appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore. However, the Tribunal by order dated 11-8-2009 [2009 (244) E.L.T. 62 (Tri. - Bang.)] dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, as the petitioner had neither deposited the duty demanded nor filed an application for waiver under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. According to the petitioner, he submitted an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the petitioner was denied an opportunity of being heard. I see valid force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order evidenced by Ext. P7 is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents inviting my attention to a decision of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in M/s. Metal Weld Electrodes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntainable. No prejudice would be caused to the second respondent as this Court is only granting the relief of re-hearing the appeal by the 2nd respondent.
Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Ext. P7 is quashed. The 2nd respondent Tribunal is directed to re-hear the memorandum of appeal evidenced by Ext. P2 and dispose of the same in accordance with law, at the earliest. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
