2017 (9) TMI 627

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ri. R. Kapoor, Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER This appeal has been filed Pearl Freight Services Pvt Ltd against confirmation of demand under Head of Cargo Handling Service. The appellant also filed Misc. Application seeking inclusion of fresh ground for consideration. 2.  Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that Order-in-Original was passed without benefit of reply of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... failing to file defence reply. Ld. Counsel argued that due to non appearance in the matter lot of mistakes have crept in the said order like only in one of the four show cause notices penalty under Section 78 was proposed, however, impugned order imposed penalty under 78 for all the show case notices. He further argued that number of other services which were also provided and the same are not cl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al. He argued that no legal point has sought to be raised before the Tribunal and additional .facts have sought to be introduced. , He pointed out that numerous opportunity of personal hearing were given before order was issued. He pointed out that sufficient time was available to the appellant to file a reply. Ld. A. R. relied on the following decisions in this regard. (a)    Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l hearing but also refused to return their files to prepare appeal to be filed to the Tribunal. It is notice that total amount of Rs. 4.78 crores stand paid out of demand of Rs. 7.22 crores. We also find that there is apparent error in the impugned order in so far as it imposes penalty under Section 78 in respect of all show cause notice whereas the said provision was not invoked in atleast two of....