TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kal, conducted a search operation in the factory of the petitioner, and stated that there is a shortage of MS Ignots in both the Units, owing to difference between the book stock and the physical stock. The Officers seized the documents from the petitioner's premises and proceeded with the investigation. 2. The assessable value of the short quantity was arrived at and the duty payable thereon was worked out. It appears a statement was recorded from the General Manager of the petitioner admitting shortage, which according to the General Manager was obtained by force. The petitioner on 27.07.2012 and 01.08.2012, remitted certain amounts towards duty. Subsequently, the respondent issued six show cause notices to the petitioner for varie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he personal hearing on 16.12.2015 and/or alternatively to 21.12.2015. The petitioner's counsel sent a letter on 19.12.2015, which was received by the respondent on 21.12.2015, requesting for re-fixing the personal hearing to last week of January 2016. The petitioner also filed their reply to the show cause notice during February 2016. Accordingly to the petitioner, without giving opportunity of personal hearing, the respondent passed the impugned Order-in-Original, dated 05.01.2016, which is challenged in these Writ Petitions. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the impugned Order-in-Original on merits, but has challenged it on the ground that it is in violation of prin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....working day. However, the petitioner did not respond to the communication and failed to turn up for inspecting and collecting the copies of the relied documents. Further, with regard to the averments made by the petitioner in ground (iv), it is submitted that the petitioner was informed, vide letter dated 08.12.2015, sent to both their registered office address at Chennai and their factory address at Karaikal by Speed Post, wherein they were informed that considering their request made by them vide their letter dated 05.12.2015, the personal hearing in the case is again fixed on 16.12.2015, and alternatively, they were required to appear for personal hearing on 21.12.2015 and they were required to file their reply to the show cause notices ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during the proceedings. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Saketh India Ltd., vs. UOI reported in 2002 (143) ELT 274 (Del). Further, it is submitted that when enough and effective opportunity was granted to the petitioner and the petitioner having not availed the same, an ex parte decision will not amount to violation of principles of natural justice. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of F N Roy vs. CC, Calcutta, reported in 1983 (13) ELT 1296 (SC). Further, it is submitted that the petitioner ought to have preferred a statutory appeal before the Tribunal, but ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er is stated to be received by the petitioner on 10.09.2015. Though the petitioner had been repeatedly sending written communications to the respondent seeking relied on documents, when the same are directed to be collected, the petitioner did not do so immediately, but sent a letter on 11.09.2015, seeking extension for collecting photocopies of the relied on documents. The respondent appears to have obliged such request and sent another letter on 18.09.2015, intimating the date for collecting photocopies. It is thereafter by notice dated 23.10.2015, personal hearing was fixed on 03.11.2015. One day prior to the hearing date on 02.11.2015, the petitioner sent a letter to re-fix the personal hearing to 3rd week of January 2016. However, such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uments collected from the respondent, were sent to the head office at Chennai. It appears that this stand has not been substantiated before the respondent nor before this Court by way of any documents. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the demand has been raised in such an arbitrary manner by adopting the electricity consumption charges etc., and therefore, it is a fit case, where the matter should be remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of personal hearing. 11. As noticed above, the facts would lead to irresistible conclusion that the petitioner, despite having knowledge of the proceedings, did not choose to submit their reply to the show cause notices, inspite ....