JUDGMENT
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. By the Stay Order No. C-I/1917-47/WZB/2001 dt. 30.7.2001 the above three applicants were directed to predeposit the entire penalty amount of Rs. 3 lakhs each imposed on Shiva Exports and M/s. Vimla Fashion Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 1 lakh on Bijaykumar Agarwal, director of the one and partner in another. The applicants seek modification of the above order. The grounds on which modification (SIC) are that the stay order was passed without hearing them. Secondly they submit that they could not fulfill the liability cast upon them under Notification No. 34/94 CE to export yarn got texturised by them from various job workers for the reasons that the job workers did not return the yarn after texturising to them. They however submitted that the impugned order itself has been passed without grant of personal hearing and in this connection they draw attention to internal page 33 of the Order-in-Original, in which it is brought out that copies of all relied upon documents were again supplied to them only on 23.11.2000, and the date fixed for personal hearing was just five days later, namely 28.11.2000 leaving, them no time to prepare their reply. They submitted that they had also addressed letter dt. 25.11.2000 to the Commissioner asking from one months time to prepare their reply as copies of documents relied upon show cause notice were given only on 23.11.2000.
2. The prayer for modification is opposed vehemently by the Ld. DR who submits that the stay order already passed considers all aspects relating to the applicants liability to penal action and no fresh ground has been made out so as to warrant any alternation in the stay order.
3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We find that the Bench while passing order directing predeposit of the penalty amount has taken into account on factors such as none appearing on the date fixed for hearing of the stay application and the merits of the matter and has came to the conclusion that prima facie the importers (applicants herein) were required to export yarn imported by them in terms of the notification. The plea regarding the impugned order having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is not prima facie acceptable since we find that the Commissioner had stated that the copies of the relied documents were supplied to all the noticees along with the show cause notice itself and was supplied one again on 23.11.2000 to the applicants herein. We are therefore not inclined to grant the prayer for modification and hence dismiss the applications. However we extend the time for predeposit of the penalty amounts imposed on all three applicants by further four weeks from today.
4. To come up for reporting compliance on 15.11.2001.
(Pronounced in Court)