TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner is correct in her submission that the respondents have passed the impugned order behind the back of the petitioner, without affording an opportunity of personal hearing. When the unit at Coimbatore was closed down way back in the year 2009, and thereafter, they have been functioning only from office at Bombay, the respondents were not correct in sending show cause notice to the Coimb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exparte order, passed without hearing the petitioner and such an order is against the principles of natural justice. According to the petitioner, no notice of hearing was issued by the first respondent for personal hearing. Since the recovery notice is a consequential order of the order in original, the same is liable to be quashed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f hearing to the petitioner, the same is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel prayed that the respondents may be directed to provide all reasonable opportunities to the petitioner. 3. Mr. A.P. Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the recovery notice dated 4.2.2015 was passed as a consequential order to the order in original dated 30.11.2011. The learned c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e recovery notice dated 4.2.2015 is also quashed. 5. Personal hearing of the petitioner is fixed on 15th June 2015 at the adjudicating office at Coimbatore. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Adjudicating Officer on the said date and extend their full cooperation for completion of the proceedings. After providing personal hearing, it is open to the respondents to pass appropriate o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|