2007 (7) TMI 444

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the Appellant. Shri M.M. Mathkar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. -  After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duties and penalties in respect of all the applicants, we proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch as the impugned order was passed in violation of principle of natural justice. It is the appellant's case that the impug....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etter dated 11-10-2006 requested for adjournment of hearing. The ground given by them is that the factory is closed; company is a sick unit and applied to BIFR etc. I observed that ground given by M/s. Aafloat is not sufficient. Moreover, as per proviso to Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during proceedings and hence ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....journment by the appellant by one month, would not amount to the fact as the adjournments have been sought three times. As such, we are of the view that the adjudicating authority's approach is not in accordance with the principle of natural justice. The impugned orders are, accordingly set aside and appeals remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo decision. Needless to say that the appe....