ORDER
U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. With regard to the import made by the appellant, the Collector passed an adjudication order determining differential duty at Rs. 2,79,110.00 and imposing penalty of Rs. 3,00,000.00 on the appellant. The order was passed on 29-6-87. This order is now challenged.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that he has serious contentions on merits but would argue for remand on the basis of violation of principles of natural justice. The records show that the adjudication case underwent some adjournments at the instance of the appellant. The last adjournment was from 25-5-1987 to 6-7-1987. As per letter dated 15-6-1987, the appellant’s advocate wrote to the Collector requesting an adjournment to August, 1987, as the partners of the law firm who had to attend to the case, were out of India and would return only by the end of July, 1987. Paragraph 6 of the Collector’s order would indicate that the advocates sought adjournment of the case “each time”. This would indicate the Collector had received the request for adjournment. It was his duty to consider the request for adjournment objectively, pass an appropriate order and inform the party or the counsel. The Collector, far from doing so, passed an order on 29-6-1987, without even waiting to see if the party himself would appear or would engage other counsel to argue the matter on 6-7-1987. This would amount to effective denial of an opportunity of personal hearing. For this reason, the order deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The jurisdictional Commissioner will adjudicate the matter after granting opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. Appeal is allowed.