2011 (7) TMI 618

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....OK JINDAL The appellants have filed miscellaneous application for correction of amounts of duty demand and penalty imposed. 2. Learned Advocate submitted that the amount of duty is Rs.1,22,791/- and penalty of Rs.1,22,791/- and inadvertently the duty amount is mentioned as Rs.1,22,187/- and penalty of Rs.1,22,187/-. Therefore, he sought rectification of the amounts in the records. The applic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eal is dismissed. The said order is not sustainable. As admitted fact that during the course of personal hearing before the adjudicating authority wherein it has been recorded that the factory of the appellants is closed for the last two years and other person is holding the possession of that premises, therefore there is no service effected on the appellants. They came to know the order only on c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2006 to meet principle of natural justice under Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. But neither the noticee nor any authorised persons on their behalf of the notice appeared for personal hearing on the appointed date and time. The jurisdictional Sector Officer, Kala Amb informed vide his letter C.No.CE-20/Demand/Rungta/38/Paonta/97/pt/371 dated 8.9.2006 that M/s.Rungta Irrigation Ltd.,Vil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on 15.2.2007 and filed the appeal on 12.4.2007 which is within 60 days i.e. period of limitation. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellants is within time. As the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is without merits, therefore, the matter is sent back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on merits considering the submissions of the appellants on the ground violation of principle....