2011 (6) TMI 485

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... When the matter was called Shri Prakash Shah, learned Advocate who is representing the main appellant namely M/s. Amber Processors was not available in the Court  therefore, the matter was adjourned to 27th July, 2011. At this stage Shri Mihir Deshmukh, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Prakash Shah, and all other parties requested to take up the matter today itself.Therefore, with consent of all the parties, the matters are taken up for final disposal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Amber Processors, a division of M/s. Piramal Spinning and Weaving Mills were registered with the Central Excise department and are engaged in the processing of cotton and man-made fabrics. A show-cause notice dated 24.03.2001 was issued to a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oddar, Director (Marketing).  Goods were also confiscated which were already redeemed on payment of duty and redemption fine.  3. Shri Mayur Shroff, learned Advocate for the appellants namely M/s. J.P. Enterprises submitted that the relied upon documents have not been supplied to the appellants. Therefore, they could not contest the case before the adjudicating authority.  As the appellant is a merchant manufacturer who has sent fabrics for processing to M/s. Amber Processors and the allegation of under-valuation of fabrics is against the appellant, therefore, unless and until the contentions of the appellant are being heard by the adjudicating authority, the order for demanding differential duty is bad in the eyes of law.....