TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to September 2003 and even assuming that the personal hearing was held on 18.09.2003, the impugned order could not have been passed on 31.08.2003 - HELD THAT:- There is no explanation for this gross error committed by the authority, as no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. This Court is satisfied that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the respondent dated 31.08.2003 by which, the respondent confirmed the payment of duty of ₹ 13,84,945/- under the provisions to Sub section 1 Section 11(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, apart from imposing the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. The petitioner has raised two grounds for chall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if the petitioner had failed to appear for the personal hearing on 18.9.2003 and therefore, the authority was constrained to decide the case based on the written submissions. The case of the petitioner is that he appeared before the authority in August 2003 and submitted written submissions and the personal hearing was adjourned to September 2003 and even assuming that the personal hearing was hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
