1998 (1) TMI 229

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....After hearing both sides with reference to the stay application filed by the appellants, we are of the view that matter itself can be disposed of on limited issue. Accordingly the amount required to be deposited for hearing both the appeals is dispensed with and the matter was taken up for hearing. 3. Arguing for the appellants Shri Hidyatulla, Sr. Advocate submitted that apart from the merits of the case the order suffers from denial of principles of natural justice inasmuch as effective hearing or was not afforded before passing the order. He submitted that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of Hi-Tech Process Control Electronic Equipments falling under Chapter 84 and 85 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 198....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the demand of duty at Rs. 1,08,96,265/- and imposing equivalent penlaty on the firm in addition to imposing personal penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on Shri Subash Dhanuka under Rule 209A of the Excise Rules. 4. Shri D.S. Negi, learned Departmental Representative countering the arguments opposed the stay as well as taking of the matter at the time of the stay applications. He submitted that the concerned Commissioner has not discussed the date of events in his order and requested sometime to enable him to get instructions from the Commissioner on the issue on denial of principles of natural justice. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. We find that each and every letter given by ....