TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that vide order dated 06.08.2007, the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Kolkata remanded the matter as it found errors in the process of adjudication of the matter. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the authority to give due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners adhering to the direction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S. Palit, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. A. Kejriwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. C.S. Mishra, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party. 3. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 22.11.2021 under Annexure-5, by which the opposite party, while confirming the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11.2021 under Annexure-5 without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without compliance of the principle of natural justice, since certain documents, which were asked for by the petitioners, were not supplied to them. Consequentially, the order impugned, having been passed by the authority without application of mind cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is contended that once ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esult of which, the petitioners have approached this Court by filling this writ petition against the confirmation of demand raised by the authority. 5. Mr. Ch. Satyajit Mishra, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the GST Central Excise Department vehemently contended that though the Authority has given opportunity of hearing, the petitioners did not avail it. It is further contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority in passing the order. Had the petitioners brought the fact to the notice of the CESTAT with regard to laches of the authority, in that event the CESTAT could have considered the same. Without doing so, the petitioners having approached this Court, the writ petition is not maintainable. 7. In the above view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
