2005 (10) TMI 141

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that they availed deemed Credit on the hot re-rolled products. This deemed credit was disputed by the departament as being not correctly availed. He further submits that on 5-8-99, the appellants' Consultant appeared for a personal hearing before the adjudicating authority and made submissions. The adjudicating authority did not accept the appellants' contentions and confirmed the demand and imposed penalty on the appellants vide his Order dated 5-11-99. He submits that the appellants were not informed about the order and the Order-in-Original was not received by appellants, and they came to know of the order being passed for the first time through Range Office on or about 25-7-2000. The appellants wrote a letter on the same day informing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Order-in-Original from the beginning. It can be seen that the appellants have been corresponding with the department from 25-7-2000, followed up by many letters, requesting the adjudicating authority to grant him a copy. The department instead of giving a copy of Order-in-Original wrote back on 13-2-2001 contents of which are reproduced below :- "Subject : Recovery of Rs. 114191/- confirmed vide A.O. NO. 399/99 dated 5-11-99 - Reg. In context to the above, it is to inform you that the above demand of Rs. 114191/- confirmed against you, and a penalty of Rs. 3000/- was imposed against you vide Adjudication Order (Order in Original No. 399/99 dated 5-11-99. The said order was dispatched through R. POST to you with dispatch Nos. 6797 6800....