9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... product manufactured and sold by the petitioner company was liable to be regarded as a textile or merely as a plastic product. The petitioners contended that the product was covered by Chapter 56 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioners sought to avail of a total exemption from duty under such provision. The concerned commissioner has considered the matter in great length in what otherwise appears to be an erudite order. The commissioner has referred to the basis of classification, the relevant tests and the like. However, there are two aspects to the order that the petitioners have emphasised on: that the petitioners did not have the services of their consultant at the final hearing and, though the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the pre-deposit and prefer an appeal. In short, it is contended that the statutory pre-condition for filing the appeal would operate so harshly against the petitioners in this case that the remedy may be regarded as illusory. The petitioners also submit that they are aware that in questioning the order in this extraordinary jurisdiction, the scope of the challenge is circumscribed by the ambit of this jurisdiction, which cannot be regarded as akin to the exercise of appellate authority. The primary grounds urged are that the petitioners ought to have been accommodated by deferring the hearing to allow the petitioners to be represented by the consultant and that the reference in the order impugned to the report pertaining to Pratap Syntheti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re can scarcely be a substitute for oral submission in course of a hearing. In addition, the order impugned is partly founded on the report pertaining to Pratap Synthetics Limited without the petitioners being afforded a copy thereof or an opportunity to deal with the same. In the circumstances, it would be in the best interest of justice to set aside the order impugned dated December 22, 2015, subject to the petitioner company being required to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 5 lakh before the concerned commissioner for the concerned commissioner to revisit the matter within four weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order upon affording the petitioners a chance to be represented at a hearing. In the event the substance of the order is mainta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
