TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 1100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ORDER The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission, dated 9-1-2008. 2. The petitioner is a Textile Mill and they filed an application under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for settlement of the proceedings initiated against them, vide show cause notice, dated 27-1-2004 by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Coim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r did not cooperate. 3. On a perusal of Paragraph 3 of the order passed by the Commission, it is seen that the case was listed for final hearing on 3-4-2007 and the petitioner's counsel, by letter, dated 30-3-2007 requested for adjournment and the matter was posted, on 28-5-2007, on which date, the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared. However, there was no departmental representative....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ought not to have been penalized by passing the impugned order. 5. It is to be noted that, three adjournments were granted by the Commission, for the reasons not attributable to the writ petitioner. One adjournment was granted on the ground that the departmental representative did not appear and two adjournments were granted for administrative reasons. Therefore, this Court is of the view th....