TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (6) TMI 399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant. Smt. Bhagya Devi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J) (Oral)]. - After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that the appeal itself requires to be summarily disposed of. Accordingly, after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit, we take up the appeal. 2. It appears from the records and submissions of both sides that these pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee's appeal before us. 3. In this appeal also, the chief ground raised by the appellants is that natural justice was denied to them by both the lower authorities. The record of our past proceedings of this appeal shows that, on earlier occasions also, a dispute had arisen between the appellants' representative and the DR as to whether personal hearing had been held by the original authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered his signature to this record of proceedings. One Shri M. Ramasubramaniam, Executive - Excise, of the company, has also signed. Smt. N. Minu, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai-I Division has also signed. This copy of the record of personal hearing has been attested by the Superintendent of Central Excise concerned. Yet another paper amongst the documents filed by SDR today is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Assistant Commissioner. We have a copy of the written submissions before us and the same is, categorically, in relation to the show cause notice dated 17-5-1991 only. Thus it is an obvious fact that the Assistant Commissioner had heard the assessee and considered their written submissions only in relation to the show cause notice dated 17-5-1991. None of the remaining five show cause notices was....