TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 819
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e demand and recovery of central excise duty under the proviso to section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with interest and penalty. 2. Shri Z.U. Alvi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had earlier pointed out on 08.08.2023 that the Principal Commissioner who passed the order had actually not heard the matter. Time was, therefore, granted to learned authorised representative of the department to seek instructions from the department. On 13.09.2023, when the matter was taken up, the following order was passed: "Though time was given to the learned authorized representative appearing for the department on 08.08.2023 to verify whether the Principal Commissioner who had passed the order on 05.08.2022 had actually heard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e notice dated 02.07.2010 indicates that the representative of the appellant had appeared online on 25.07.2022. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellant has also placed the notice dated 19.07.2022 sent by the Superintendent to the appellant regarding the hearing to be conducted on 22.07.2022. The said notice clearly mentions that the hearing would take place before the Principal Commissioner on 22.07.2022 at 12:00pm through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the appellant states the he personally went to the office and was told that the hearing would take place by virtual conferencing on 25.07.2022 and that is why he appeared on 25.07.2022. 6. The order dated 05.08.2022 that has been signed by the Principal Commissioner m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quired to adjudicate the show cause notice should have heard the matter, but it clearly transpires from the records provided to the appellant by the department itself under the Right to Information Act that the matter was actually heard by the Additional Commissioner. 9. We are surprised that the Deputy Commissioner who has responded pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal to clarify as to who had heard the matter has stated in the communication dated 11.09.2023 that the objections raised by the appellant that the order-in-original has been passed by the Principal Commissioner but he had not heard the matter is "completely incorrect and baseless". 10. This statement made by the Deputy Commissioner is clearly contradictory to the info....