2022 (4) TMI 1362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ring was given to the petitioner on an earlier occasion, no fresh opportunity can be granted. 2. To a specific query, as to whether grant of personal hearing to the Authorized Representative of the petitioner had to be given as per the revised guidelines issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Judicial Cell), dated 21.08.20201, Mr Kumar says that personal hearing, although mandatory, was not given, as the request was made by one, Mr Nilotpal Shyam, Advocate, who had not placed his vakalatnama on record. 3. It is pertinent to note that on the previous date of hearing i.e., 28.03.2022, Mr Satish Kumar was not able to give us a clear answer as to whether or not the e-mail id of the petitioner was available with the respond....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... It is Mr Kumar's submission that the e-mail appended on page 239 of the case file has been sent by, one, Mr Nilotpal Shyam, Advocate, whom the respondent could not have recognised, unless vakalatnama had been placed on record by the petitioner. 3. Clearly, qua the query raised by us as to whether the respondent had the email-id of the petitioner i.e., the assessee, Mr Kumar has not been able to give us any clear answer. 3.1. It is our sense that if the email-id of the petitioner was available with the respondent, the respondent could have sent the intimation of the hearing fixed on 09.12.2020, along with the link for virtual hearing. 4. We may also note that it is the contention of the petitioner that the issue raised vis-à-vi....