2012 (12) TMI 649

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the case are that the Appellant are engaged in the manufacture of excisable products namely, Sponge Iron, M.S.Ingots and Runner Riser falling under Chapter Heading No.72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were also availing CENVAT Credit on Capital Goods, Inputs and Input Service. Proceedings were initiated against them on the ground that on nine occasions, they paid the duty by availing the CENVAT Credit prematurely. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was issued to them with a proposal for demand of duty of Rs.1,31,35,915/- along with a proposal for imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Learned Commissioner confirmed the proposals. Being aggriev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ciple of natural justice. In their support, they placed reliance on this Tribunal's decisions in the case of Meenakshi Associates(P) Ltd; vs. CCE, Noida reported in 2009 (245) ELT 362 (Tri.-Del.) and in the case of Jindal Waterways Ltd. vs. CC(Export), Nhava Sheva reported in 2009 (247) ELT 715 (Tri.-Mumbai) 5. Learned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the record. Undisputedly, in response to a single notice of personal hearing issued on four consecutive dates on 07.12.2009, 08.12.2009, 10.12.2009 and 11.12.2009, the Appellant had approached the learned Commissioner for adjournment on the ground that the person who was dealing w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d on the request of the Advocate for the appellants. However, on failure of the Advocate on 8-10-08, the matter was adjourned to 14-10-08. It is pertinent to note that when earlier notice about fixing of hearing on 14-10-08 was issued, the Advocate for the appellants had informed the authority that the date of 14-10-08 was not convenient to him and therefore the matter could be preponed to 8-10-08. Being so, it was not appropriate for the concerned authority to adjourn the hearing from 8-10-08 to 14-10-08.     7. In this matter mere failure of the learned Advocate to appear on 14-10-08 could not be a reason to proceed ex-parte. Besides on 13-10-08 an application was moved by the learned Advocate for postponement of hearing....