TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same sum. It appears that the petitioner had filed appeal against this order which is provided by the statute, however, that appeal has been dismissed as barred by limitation. The petitioner, therefore, has challenged the original order. The only ground on which the original order dated 28-3-2007 is challenged is that the order has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice. 3. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It is common ground that before disposing of the proceedings, the authority is under a duty to grant an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. So far as the aspect of final hearing is concerned, in para 11 of the order impugned passed by the original authority dated 28-3-2007, following is o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han the cost ascertained as per cost construction method under CAS-4 costing principles. You are also requested to submit the product wise clearances removals to Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt. Limited Wadala for the period 01-04-=2001 to 31-3-2004 within 7 days . 5. By this letter after 15-11-2006, the petitioner was asked to produce product wise clearances removals to Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt. Limited, Wadala for the period 01-04-2001 to 31-03-2004 within 7 days. On 27-12-2007 another letter was addressed by the same authority, the subject of that letter reads as under : Sub. : C. Ex.Personal Hearing in respect of SCN No.V(Ch.30) 3-12/Dem/06 dated 18-04-2006 M/s.Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt.Ltd., Dadra It is para 1, 2 and 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered Accountant hearing fixed on 12/16-1-2007 would be postponed and a new date of hearing will be given. 7. The Respondents have not disputed what is stated in para 20 of the petition. It is thus clear from what has foregone that the hearing of the matter did not conclude on 15-11-2006 as claimed in the order dated 28-3-2007. The matter was kept for hearing on 12-1-2007 or 16-102007. Therefore, the observations in the order that the final hearing of the matter was on 13-11-2006 or 15-11-2006 is factually incorrect. Perusal of the uncontroverted averments in para 20 of the petition shows that the petitioner has requested for time to produce the documents and he was assured that the time will be granted. It is thus clear from the record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
