9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) and (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In other words, before passing an adjudication order, the adjudicating authority shall grant time to the licensee and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing, however, the party to such proceeding shall not be granted more than three times during the proceeding. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is per se in violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory procedure contemplated under 33-A (1) and (2)of the Act. 3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that the petitioner has been given adequate opportunity to defend the proceedings initiated against him and therefore, it cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement of the officials in charge of the petitioner company. On the basis of the information gathered during such search, a cause notice dated 31.03.2014 was issued by the Additional Director General, Directorate General of Central Excise to the petitioner. The said show cause notice dated 31.03.2014 would indicate that the petitioner was called upon to submit their objections within 30 days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice, or if already they have submitted their explanation, they were directed to appear before the said authority on the appointed date and time, else, their case will be decided on the basis of the available records and evidence. On receipt of the notice dated 31.03.2014, the petitioner submitted their d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as produced documents along with their objection dated 18.12.2014 and sought time to appear for personal hearing. Pursuant thereto, by a communication dated 14.11.2014, the second respondent called upon the petitioner to appear on any of the three days mentioned therein. On receipt of the same, the petitioner, by a letter dated 18.12.2014 requested the second respondent to have the personal hearing on any date after 15.01.2015. However, such request made by the petitioner has not been considered by the second respondent. In other words, the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing at all as contemplated under Section 33-A (1) and (2) of the Act, which is mandatory. The second respondent ought to have considered the claim of the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
