TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case to reach the said conclusion. It is clear that Section 33A of the Act, 1944 and particularly the proviso to sub- Section(2) does not come into operation. Clearly, the petitioner had been denied his right under law to make his defence prior to the adjudication of the proceeding. We have no hesitation in coming to hold that rules of the natural justice have not been complied with and Section 33A (2) proviso of the Act, 1944 has been brought into play, without the necessary circumstances available in the present case to reach the said conclusion. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - W. P. (C) No. 18137 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2015 - Indrajit Mahanty And B. N. Mahapatra,JJ. For the Petitioner : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 requested for adjournment of the hearing. Since the adjudicating authority was under order of transfer, fresh hearing was fixed to 21.6.2010, on which date, the petitioner once again prayed for an adjournment and the matter was fixed to 29.6.2010. Prior to the date, i.e. on 25.6.2010, the petitioner made another request for adjournment for a period of two months on the plea that the averments made in the notice are voluminous and some of the relied upon documents were dim (unclear). Accordingly, the last and final date of hearing was fixed to 12.7.2010 and purportedly communicated to the petitioner orally by the adjudicating authority purportedly during hearing of another case of the same party, whereafter he claims that the formal commu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Act, give an opportunity of being heard to a party in a proceeding, if the party so desires. (2) The Adjudicating authority may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of proceeding referred to in sub-section (1), grant time, from time to time, to the parties or any of them and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recoded in writing: Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during the proceeding. 5. In the given facts situation of the present case, there had never been three adjournments granted to the petitioner as claimed in the impugned order. The original date fixed was 11.5.2010 to 14.5.2010. Although the petitioner had sought for an adjournment, the matter could not be taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so of the Act, 1944 has been brought into play, without the necessary circumstances available in the present case to reach the said conclusion. 7. In view of the above reasons cited hereinabove, we quash the impugned order dated 27.08.2010 issued on 31.08.2010 under Annexure-15. The Commissioner (Opposite Party No.2) is directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner to proceed in the matter afresh and adjudicate the same expeditiously. 8. Mrs. Padhi, learned counsel representing the Central Excise Department makes a prayer to direct the petitioner to make some further deposit in the matter. 9. Mr. Pangari, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner had deposited a sum of ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
