1996 (5) TMI 223

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../- on the firm, besides ordering confiscation of the goods seized and also of plant and machinery of M/s. R.R. Windal. 2. The ld. Advocate submits that the Notice for listing the matter for hearing on 21-7-1986 was served on them on 17-7-1986, and on the next day i.e. 18th the Advocate on record went to the Office of Collector and because, the Collector was not available, submitted an application for adjournment in the Office. However as a precaution, on 21-7-1986 one Junior Advocate was sent to the Office of Collector for ensuring that the adjournment was granted. The ld. Collector insisted on the said Junior Advocate to argue the matter, and because he was so compelled, he read out what was written in the reply to the Show Cause Not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as the non compliance with the principle of natural justice concerned, and at this stage the said finding cannot be reviewed. He also pleads that even on merits, the Collector has examined all these aspects pleaded and hence, there is no cause for ordering remand of the matter. 4. Considering the submissions, and going through the records it appears that Mr. Vivek Sharma the Advocate who is reported to have made the submissions, was not the Advocate appointed by the party and he was holding the brief for the Advocate on record. It is undisputed position that on 18-7-1986 application seeking adjournment was already sent and on 21-7-1986 Mr. Sharma sought for an adjournment, which was refused by the Collector. The reply to the Show Caus....