2010 (5) TMI 423

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mber (T) REPRESENTED BY :        None, for the Appellant. Smt. Joy Kumari Chander, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.M.S. Khandeparker, President]. - None present for the assessee; however, this letter dated 21-5-2010 clearly discloses that the appellants are fully aware of the date of hearing. Smt. Joy Kumari Chander, learned JCDR pres....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner from taking any coercive action till the disposal of the stay application." The above matters relate to "the claim of the department for duty to the tune of Rs. 6,60,61,607/- and penalty of Rs. 60,00,000/-." 3. Appeals relate to the year 2008. In the appeal filed by the department there are cross-objections filed by the assessee. In the appeal filed by the assessee there is stay ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lication and 13 miscellaneous applications were disposed of wherein also the orders were passed by the same Member. The records further disclose that during the month of April two members were sitting at Bangalore Bench namely Dr. S.L. Peeran, Member (Judicial) and Shri T.K. Jayaraman Member (Technical). 6. The above observation regarding the records available with the Tribunal have been ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i on or before 10th June 2010. 8. As already observed, the above matter involved duty demand of Rs. 6,60,61,607/- and penalty of Rs. 60,00,000/-. It is also understood that the department also did not take appropriate steps to get the matter listed for hearing till this date. In view of the fact that the matter involved huge amount of revenue, it is necessary to bring this fact to the not....