KEDIYA INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS had filed an appeal vide Appeal No. E/3408/02 and on noticing the same was not decided till 2009, they made an application for reconstruction vide their letter dated 2 -3 -2009 enclosing copies of all the relevant papers. Accordingly, the file was reconstructed since the appeal papers had not been received from Mumbai. Thereafter, hearings were fixed on 8 -6 -2009, 4 -8 -2009 and today. No one has appeared on all the three dates, nor there is any request from the appellants for adjournment.

(2.) WE have heard the learned JDR on behalf of Revenue. He submits that the case is one of utilisation of brand name of another person and therefore appellants have been hold to be ineligible for the SSI exemption and duty has been demanded and penalty has been imposed. He submits that there was a clear admission of the partners about using the brand name of another unit and there were statements from the buyers also confirming this. Further, as regards principles of natural justice he submits that the appellants did not utilise the opportunities given to them and therefore department cannot be faulted with.

(3.) IN the appeal memorandum the appellants have submitted that in this case principles of natural justice were not observed. The Original Adjudicating Authority had given an opportunity of personal hearing and on that day there were communal riots in the city and therefore they gave a telegram seeking adjournment. They were expecting they would be given another opportunity to present their case but surprisingly they received the final order without any further reference to them. The personal hearing was fixed on 28 -7 -99 whereas the order was passed on 3 -11 -99, without giving an opportunity. In the appellate proceedings also, the Commissioner (Appeals) offered a personal hearing on 10 -6 -2002 and they had requested for adjournment on the ground that the consultant was sick. Another personal hearing was fixed on 25 -7 -2002 according to the Commissioner (Appeals) but thereafter the impugned order was passed without any further opportunity. The appellants have submitted that if they were given sufficient opportunities to present their case they would have been able to defend their case successfully.