2005 (10) TMI 566

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ER MR JITENDRA MALKAN FOR THE RESPONDENT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) 1.Heard Mr.P.R.Nanavati, the learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Jitendra Malkan appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities. 2. RULE. Mr.Malkan waives service. The petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today in light of the fact that the controversy lies in a ve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... No.4 once again reiterated what was stated in the earlier order / communication dated 25/8/2005. 5. There is no dispute as to the fact that the petitioner company is engaged in manufacturing optical fibre cable and for the said purpose, is registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act). That the petitioner has been assessed since inception under Tariff Entry No.8544.10 (subsequently r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r that, during the pendency of such investigation, the impugned order / communication dated 25/8/2005 (Annexure "A") has been served on the petitioner, followed up by communication dated 26/9/2005 (Annexure "C-1"), despite the fact that, till date, the investigation is in progress and is not complete. 7. Mr.Malkan, appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities, has tendered affidavit in rep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....authorities. If any such order is made, it would directly be in breach of principles of natural justice. In fact, during the course of hearing, Mr.Malkan failed to point out whether any show cause notice was given to the petitioner or whether the petitioner was heard before making the impugned order. To the contrary, the affidavit in reply dated 13/10/2005 itself records that the investigation is ....