TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (5) TMI 559
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be customers of one M/s. Mahabir Prasad & Co. who are found to have colluded with M/s. Mahabir Prasad & Co. (who are the manufacturers of metal containers)' to avoid payment of duty by irregular use of Modvat credit. The Adjudicating authority has held that it is a case of bogus clearance made by M/s Mahabir Prasad & Co. to the above named appellants and others. 2. The grievance of M/s. Urvashi Enterprises and others is that they did not receive notice of personal hearing even though they had replied to the show cause notice and therefore, the orders suffers from the vice of contravention of principles of natural justice which require that a person should be heard before orders are passed against him. He further submits that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t neither was such a copy served upon M/s. Karan Steels nor any opportunity of hearing given before the Adjudication order was passed. 6. Regarding M/s. Duggar Fibres, the complaint is that on receipt of the show cause notice, they found that the enclosures in the form of relied upon documents, were not furnished alongwith the notice and therefore, they addressed the Adjudicating authority by their letter dated 25-9-1996 requesting for photocopies of statements of those persons whose statements had been sought to be relied upon in the show cause notice, which were not furnished. 7. The grievance of M/s. Jammu Castings is that they were not supplied with the copies of the relied upon documents including the statements and tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct and take copies of the relied upon documents which the assessee avoided and therefore, submits that it is stalling tactics on the part of the appellants who cannot, therefore, complain now of violation of principles of natural justice. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides. We find that as far as the appellants who have complained that they have not received any notice of hearing there is nothing on record to controvert their contentions. We also find that there is no indication in the impugned order itself that notices of personal hearing were issued and received by all the appellants above named. We also note the submissions of the learned Counsel representing M/s. Urvashi Enterprises, M/s. Shivani L....