TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esence of the ld. Advocate for the appellants. However, since no one appeared on 7-7-08 on behalf of the appellants, the Bench passed an ex parte order directing pre-deposit of only 50% duty amount. From the miscellaneous application filed by the appellants, it appears that the ld. Advocate did not take note of the fact that the hearing of the stay petition was adjourned to 7-7-08. Hence, when the matter came up on 9-9-08 for ascertaining compliance, we directed the matter to be listed on 23-9-08. With a view to ensuring that the appellants do not suffer on account of their Advocate not taking note of the date of adjournment which was fixed earlier for hearing the stay petition, we have allowed Shri V. N. Dwivedi, the ld. Advocate for the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onstrate as to how non-receipt of any of these documents earlier has hindered the appellants from making an effective representation against the charges made against them. He does not argue the case on merit either to demonstrate that the appellants have a prima facie case on merit. He also produces no documents to prove any financial hardship the appellants may face in making the pre-deposit. 5. We have heard the ld. SDR appearing for the Department who supports the impugned order and states that the appellants have availed of huge amount of input duty credit amounting to Rs. 75,48,840/- without the inputs being transported to the appellant's, factory and without the same being used for manufacture of finished goods. Hence, he oppo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellants for waiver of the predeposit is that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. We very much appreciate that the impugned order would not sustain if principles of natural justice have indeed not been followed. At the same time, we note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Suvarna Board Mills and Another - (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 566 as follows :- "It is well settled that natural justice cannot be placed in a strait-jacket; its rules are not embodied and they do vary from case to case and from one fact-situation to another. All that has to be seen is that no adverse civil consequences are allowed to ensue before one is put....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r before us that they are indeed entitled to the duty credit. 10. They did not give any reply to the show-cause notice and they took the plea initially that required copies of certain documents were not given to them. Most of the documents required by them were given by the Department by 31-8-07 as per the appellants' own contention. We find that the adjudicating Commissioner had fixed the last personal hearing on 8-10-07/9-10-07/10-10-07. As such, the appellants had more than a month's time to prepare the defence and to appear before the adjudicating Commissioner for hearing on any of these three dates. However, they did not appear on any of these dates. They claim that they wrote a letter on 10-10-07 seeking adjournment of hearing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... being eligible to the alleged inadmissible credit of over Rs. 75 lakhs. 11. The appellants have also submitted in the stay petition that they were not given some of the documents. It is the Department's case that these were not relevant for the proceeding. In any case, copies of these documents as per the appellants' own admission have been given to them on or before 5-7-08 under the Department's covering letter dated 27-6-08. Since these documents are in the hands of the appellants now, we asked the ld. Advocate to demonstrate before us as to how non-receipt of these documents earlier prejudiced the appellants' case before the adjudicating Commissioner and if so to what extent they were prejudiced. But the ld. Advocate does not ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... plead their case or to argue for adjournment with sufficient reason, but merely sent a letter on 10-10-07 ; and they are not pleading any financial difficulty with supporting documents before us. On the other hand, we find that prima facie, the Department has done thorough investigation even though they have not examined each and every transporter involved. They have verified with a fair number of transporters to find that either the vehicle numbers are not registered or the vehicles have not transported the impugned inputs and in one case, the vehicle was a tanker. The Department's case does not require to be proved with mathematical precision but should meet the test of preponderance of probability which, prima facie, in our view, it has....