1999 (7) TMI 557

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in respect of the said penalty. 2. The ld. Advocate points out that the Tribunal vide its Order No. A/323-326/97-NB dated 18-2-1997 had observed that the Collector of Central Excise had not granted the opportunity of personal hearing before passing the order and the appellants were never put the notice as to what they have to say on the figures arrived at by the Collector after verification and investigation of the figures of the import made by the appellant. The matter was, therefore, remanded to the Collector of Central Excise for de novo adjudication in the light of the aforesaid observations. 3. Ld. Advocate Shri J.S. Agarwal points out that despite the aforesaid clear observations of the Tribunal in its Order dated 18-2-19....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ved by the PA to the said Commissioner has alleged that the party namely the appellant herein did not avail of the opportunity of personal hearing. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner and now before us in the present Stay Application is again in violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the directions of the Tribunal in its Order dated 18-2-97. He, therefore, submits that the Stay Petition deserves to be allowed unconditionally. He would have no objection if the matter is remanded to the Commissioner. 4. Opposing the contentions ld. SDR Shri Satnam Singh submits that from the copy of the letter dated 15/20-10-97 available at page 110/111 of the appeal papers it is not clea....