2014 (2) TMI 162

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lent penalty has been imposed upon the main appellant M/s. Waghbakriwala Rayon (100% EOU). Other appellants have been visited with penalty of Rs. 10 Lakhs each under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Shri S. Suriyaranarayanan (Advocate) appearing on behalf of all the appellants argued that the notice of hearing was not received by the appellants, therefore, orders confirming the demand and imposition of penalties have been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. It was his case that the factory was attached by the Revenue and main appellant had no control over the premises. He relied upon the following case laws in support of his argument that intimation of p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e was made available by the appellants. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. It is the case of the appellants that notices sent for personal hearings were not received by them as the factory was attached by Revenue in 2005 and hence this matter may be remanded to the original adjudicating authority to provide them hearing and also the relied upon documents. It is observed from the case records that the main appellant was corresponding from an address as per letter dated 21.11.2005, 08.1.2007 and 23.01.2009 written to the Revenue. Letters written by Revenue to the appellant was also sent to the appellants to the same address at '346/358, GIDC, Pandesara, Surat'. Therefore, the argument taken by the appellant that from 2005 on....