2012 (12) TMI 466

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Cigarettes Pvt. Ltd. besides imposing penalty on various persons including the appellant. 2. These matters were originally listed for argument on stay applications moved by the appellants seeking waiver of the condition of pre-deposit of the duty demand and penalty. During the course of arguments Sh. L.P. Asthana, Advocate for the appellant submitted that the order has been passed in contravention of the stay order dated 1-11-2001 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, as such is not sustainable in law. 3. Since the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the appellant is purely legal with the consent of the parties we have proceeded to hear the appeals itself after waiving the condition of pre-deposit of demand, interes....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ustice because non supply of documents have prevented the appellant to properly defend the show cause notice. Thus, ld. Counsel has urged that the appeal be accepted and matter be remanded back for de novo adjudication after complying with the direction of the High Court and also permitting the appellant to cross-examine the relevant witnesses whose statement the department wants to rely upon. 5. Sh. Sunil Kumar, ld. AR on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order and he has referred to the affidavit of Sh. Pawan Kumar Jain, Commissioner (Adjudication), Delhi and submitted that adjudication order was passed by the then Commissioner (Adjudication) on 30-10-2001 when he approved the fair copy of the order in the adminis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....djudication order-in-original on 7-11-2001. This amounts to violation of the undertaking given before the High Court. The plea of the respondent is that actually the adjudication order came into existence on 30-10-2001 when the Commissioner (Adjudication) approved the draft of the order-in-original in the administrative file and the date of order therefore is 30-10-2001 and not 7-11-2001 when the order was signed by the concerned Commissioner. We are unable to accept this contention because in order to be executable order, it necessarily has to be signed by the authority concerned. Admittedly impugned order was signed on 7-11-2001 during the operation of stay order. Therefore, it came into existence on 7-11-2001 in violation of the stay ord....