ORDER
Shri Krishna Kumar, Member (Judicial)
1. Shri Ajay Sethi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellant has filed the following documents before the lower authorities:-
(i) A.R.4 No.: SRGM/R-1/B.47/98-99 dt.23.06.98 proof of export submitted on 20.11.98, received by him on 22 Dec. 1998 along with A.R.4, Bill of Lading dt.30 Jan, 1998, Shipping Bill No : 1050754/26 Jun,98, Invoice No:05 dt.24.6.98, packing list and Commercial Invoice No.:EXP/Y/4/98-99 dt.18.06.98.
(ii) A.R.4 No.:SRGM/R-1/B.84/98-99 dt.02.09.98 proof of export submitted on 12.01.99 received by him on 15 Jan. 1999 along with A.R.4, Bill of Lading No:JHTA 07089 dt.04 SEP.1998, Shipping Bill No: 1073882/04 Sept.98, Invoice No.:13/02.09.98, packing list and Commercial Invoice No.:EXP/Y/7/98-99/dated 01.09.98.
(iii) Export under A.R.4 No.:SRGM/R-1/B.89/98-99 dt.09.09.98, Invoice No: 1 dt.09.09.98, Commercial Invoice No:Exp/Y/8/98-99 dated 09.09.98 was cancelled due to L.C. got expired and therefore requested to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, A.C.P.G. Nhava Shewa to allow the appellants to back the container No:CPSU-470032-4 containing 350 Cartons meant for export and lying in Buffer Yard. The same was allowed. The CWC issued Gate Pass No:14027 dated 28.10.98 for removal of the said container to back to the town.
(iv) A.R.4 No.:SGRM/R-1/B.97/98-99 dated 12.10.98, proof of export submitted on 18.12.98 received by him on 30.12.98 along with A.R.4, Bill of Lading No.:BOM/CTG/0002/1175 dated 21 Oct.1998, Shipping Bill No:1086344/16 Oct.98. Invoice No: 18 dated 12.10.98 Packing List and Commercial Bill No.:Exp/Y/9/98-99 dated 05.10.98.
(v) A.R.4 No.:SGRM/R-1/B.105/98-99 dated 14.10.98, proof of export submitted on 18.12.98 and received by him on 30 Dec.98 along with A.R.4, Bill of Lading No.:BOM/CTG/0001/1174 dated 21 Oct.1998, Shipping Bill No: 1086345/16 Oct.98 Invoice No: 20 dated 14.10.98, Packing List and Commercial Bill No:Exp/Y/10/98-99 dated 14.10.98.
2. However, his contentions is that the Adjudicating authority has passed the ex-party order even though no notice for date of hearing was received by the appellant. The documents submitted by the appellant have not been considered and finding thereon have not been recorded by the lower authorities.
3. Shri Hemant Kotikar, learned S.D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue has no objection for the matter being remanded for fresh adjudication.
4. After hearing both sides and perusal of the records, I remand the matter to the Adjudicating authority for denovo adjudication and pass a fresh speaking order after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellants.
(Pronounced in Court)