2003 (5) TMI 274

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....C. Patel, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. - Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. In this case, respondents made an import of certain tubes and claimed benefit of Notification No. 177/88. The condition of the notification is that the imported tubes are to be utilised within one year or such e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sides. 5. The contention of the revenue is that once the extension was denied by the Commissioner, the impugned order again granting the extension is not sustainable. 6. The contention of the respondents is that earlier extensions were denied without affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondents, therefore, the orders were passed in violation to the principles of natural j....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as denied. It is not brought on record by the respondents whether they had asked for any personal hearing. As we are not agreeing with the respondents that the orders denying extension were passed in violation to the principles of natural justice, the ratio of the decision relied upon by the respondents is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. Further, we find that the Hon'bl....