Desai Electronics P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

2. the commissioner (adjudication), mumbai was designated as the adjudicating authority in respect of these six notices issued to the assessees and other persons located at pune. after some correspondence date of hearing before the commissioner was fixed for 4-12-1997. by letter dated 1-12-1997 the managing director of m/s. desai electronics pvt. ltd. wrote to the superintendent (adjudication) advising him that shri rohan shah, advocate, will appear and would get in touch with him.shri rohan shah tells us that he requested the superintendent (adjudication) on 3-12-1997, the day before the hearing for another date on the ground that he had a matter before the tribunal on that day, and suggested three possible dates on which he was free. the superintendent promised to get back to him. however no further hearing was posted and order has been passed ex parte.3. the commissioner may be right when he says numerous opportunities earlier have been given for the hearing. however the notices, initially to be adjudicated by the commissioner of central excise, pune were transferred to the commissioner (adjudication), mumbai, after that post was created sometime in september, 1997. when the advocate for the noticee met superintendent (adjudication) and asked for adjournment, the adjournment was promised and not refused. we are therefore of the view that the appellant has not been given proper opportunity of being heard and set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.4. shri rohan shah tells us that he will not need more than two weeks notice for a hearing. the commissioner (adjudication) shall adjudicate the matter accordingly, according to law.