TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (8) TMI 146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that after hearing the submissions, the Tribunal may be pleased to grant waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter in the interest of justice. 2. Shri Krishna Srinivas, the learned Counsel submitted that the learned adjudicating authority passed the impugned order ex parte though on merits without affording the appellants adequate opportunity of hearing. It was submitted that the matter was posted for personal hearing on 7-8-1990 and consequent on the appellants' Consultant Sheik Ahmed proceeding on Haj Pilgrimage, and request for adjournment the personal hearing was fixed on 10-9-1990. Shri Sheik Ahmed by his letter dated 5-9-1990 requested for cross-examination of one Thank....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng through the record and after hearing the submission the impugned order has to be set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration, on grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice, by granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, we take up the appeal for disposal. 5. The short issue for consideration in the appeal is whether the request for adjournment made on behalf of the appellant's Consultant Sheik Ahmed on the date fixed by the adjudicating authority i.e. on 31-10-1990 is just and proper or not. Records reveal the following facts : It would be seen from the impugned order, para 53 that appellants' Consultant Sheik Ahmed did not appear for the personal hearing before the adjudicating authority on 7-8-1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hed aside his personal inconveniences and made it convenient to attend the hearing on 31-10-1990". We are afraid we are not able to agree with this observation of the learned adjudicating authority. Reference to earlier adjournments may not be relevant when the adjudicating authority had granted them. The crucial question is whether the request for adjournment from 31-10-1990 was for a valid, proper and just and sufficient reason or not. If a person suddenly takes ill and is physically not in a position to travel, such circumstances cannot be foreseen and therefore adjournment sought for was unavoidable or inevitable and the request for adjournment cannot be rejected. The letter of the Consultant seeking adjournment reads as under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtment that the adjudicating authority had posted the matter for cross-examination as well as personal hearing. Even if the adjudicating authority has chosen to reject the plea for adjournment on 31-10-1990 the matter should have been posted for arguments. Rejecting the request for adjournment on 31-10-1990 and passing the impugned order on 28-12-1990 is neither proper nor just. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the request of the Consultant for adjournment should have been granted since the same was on grounds of personal illness supported by a Medical Certificate. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority for reconsideration of the issue in ....