TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (9) TMI 426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant. Smt. Aruna Gupta, DR, for the Respondents. [Order]. - For the purpose of hearing the stay application the appellants are required to pre-deposit total duty amount of Rs. 10,39,255/- besides penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed under Rule 173Q (l)(d) of Central Excise Rules. The short point on which the appellants are seeking waiver is that there was total denial of principles of n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er vide telegram for adjournment. He submits that the request was turned down and the Commissioner had proceeded to pass ex-parte order. He therefore, submits that the matter may be remanded to the Commissioner, so that the appellants can make submissions on merits, as they have a strong case. 3. The department had proceeded to demand duty on the ground that the appellants are not entitled....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edit of duty and thereby the credit taken by the appellants under Rule 56A in respect of the said product was alleged to be not admissible, hence, the demands were raised. 4. The learned counsel further submits that they had taken the view that the processes carried out by them did not amount to manufacture and hence they were not liable to pay excise duty on the final product by taking pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matter need not be remanded. 6. On a careful consideration of the submissions, we notice that the appellants had asked for adjournment in the matter, as the company was closed and the matter had been referred to B.I.F.R. Therefore, the reason for adjournment was genuine and the Commissioner should have adjourned the matter. As the case has been decided ex-parte, we are of the considered op....