TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ues afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and allow them to file reply to the show cause notice, in support of their defense. However, it is necessary to put some conditions on the appellants before remanding the case to the adjudicating authority. Consequently, the Appellant No. 1 M/s. Sidhi Vinayak Metcom (P) Ltd. is directed to deposit seven and half per cent of the confirmed duty within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order and report compliance directly to the ld. Commissioner. After recording compliance, the ld. Commissioner would proceed with the adjudication, to decide all the issues afresh. He is also directed to consider the request for providing the relevant documents, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice, therefore, they could not file a proper reply to the show cause notice. He submits that the evidences discussed by the adjudicating authority in confirming the demand against the applicants are rebuttable and they can adduce evidences in support of their claim that the goods alleged to have been removed without payment of duty, in fact, based on assumptions and presumptions and they have cleared all their manufactured goods during the said period on payment of duty after recording in the statutory registers and on preparation of excise invoices. He however fairly accepts that the reply could have been filed on the basis of evidences available with them without waiting for all the documents that were necessary for preparation of the rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . confirmed the allegation of clandestine removal. The contention of the appellants on the other hand is that the said evidences were not allowed to be rebutted by them by filing reply to the show cause notice as all the relevant documents, had not been supplied to them. We find from the observation of the ld. Commissioner that ample opportunities had been provided to the appellant to submit their reply to the show cause notice. But the appellants had kept on asking for extension of time to file the reply and participate in the adjudication proceeding. The defense of the appellant for not filing the reply and attend the personal hearing is that all relevant documents were not supplied to them. However, before this Tribunal, the ld. Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
