ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. On hearing both sides on the stay application the appeal was taken up for final disposal.
2. The Commissioner passed the impugned order Ex-parte holding that the notices to the show cause notice had not filed any reply and had not appeared for hearing. In the order he confirmed demand of Rs.7,55,385/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs.40,000/- upon them. The plea made by the appellants is that they had in fact filed a reply dt. 28.1.99 which had been received by the Custom House of the next day. In the reply, It was claimed that the notices were transfer licences holders, that there was no evidence to show that the conditions of the notification had been contravened. It was also claimed that the demand suffered on limitation. An order passed by the Commissioner in a different case was enclosed holding that in identical circumstances the demand was barred by limitation.
3. The same claims were made before us. The following judgments were also cited
[2000 (39) RLT 874 (CEGAT)]
Futura Fashions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Sheva,
[2000 (120) ELT 775 (Tribunal)]
Plastchem Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva
4. We observe that the Ld. Commissioner had made an error in passing the order Ex-parte while the reply had been filed in his office. On this ground we allow the appeal and remit the proceedings back to the Commissioner. He shall give sufficient time to the appellants before him to make their statements. He shall also consider very carefully the large body of law given by the Tribunal governing the situation in which the present appellants are placed before making his order.
5. Stay Petition also stands disposed of.
(Pronounced in Court)