Full Judgment
2. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner confirmed duty totally amounting to Rs. 21,05,705/-. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs on M/s. Anand Udyog and of Rs. 2 lakhs each on the other two applicants Shri A.B. Kanade and Shri S.B. Kanade. These applications seek waiver of pre-deposit of these sums and also stay of recovery thereof.
3. We have Shri S.N. Kantawala, Advocate for the applicants and Shri A.K. Chatterjee, SDR for the Revenue.
4. Shri Kantawala submits that the Commissioner had directed the applicants on occasions to appear before him for hearing. On each occasion, the applicant had, on valid grounds disclosed in their application, requested for adjournment. While on the first two occasions the Commissioner did adjourn the proceedings, on the last occasion he made no communication but passed the order after about one month of the application by the applicants for further adjournment. He states that in the impugned order, there is no mention of the application made by the applicants for adjournment of the proceedings and his observation for not accepting to their request. He submits that the action of the Commissioner in passing an order without hearing the applicants has violated the principles of natural justice and on this ground the impugned is liable to be set aside at this stage and the proceedings remanded. Shri Chatterjee on the other hand, submits that in all the intimations for personal hearing the asses-sees had been warned that failure to appear might result in the proceedings being completed ex parte. He submits that on each occasion, the assessees had been given intimation well before the proposed dates of hearing but on each occasion the assessees had sought adjournment on the last possible date. He submitted that the reasons on which the adjournment was requested did not stand. He submitted that if there was a puja in the factory the Advocate could appear for the personal hearing. He relied upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of S.G. Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 356. In the judgment the Tribunal when making the judgment had rejected the Advocate's plea for adjournment on the ground that the personal conversant with the facts was away, on the observation that the matter was old. Shri Kantawala did not argue on the other points raised in the stay application.
6. In the impugned order the Commissioner has reproduced all the points raised in the reply to the show cause notice filed by the three applicants. It is however, correct that in the finding he has not narrated the circumstances under which he chose to proceed with the matter before him inspite of the last request made by the assessees. In his discussion, he has covered the various points raised in the reply to the show cause notice. In these circumstances, we find the request of Shri Kantawala for remand of this case does not sustain. Considering the grounds disclosed in the show cause notices as also the discussions made by the ld. Commissioner, we direct the applicants M/s. Anand Udyog to deposit a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs only towards the duty confirmed in the impugned order. The deposit shall be made within 10 weeks of the receipt of the order. The applicants are permitted to make the deposit of the sum prescribed in installments also as long as the last installment is made before the prescribed date. On such deposit being made the pre-deposit of the reminder of the duty as also the penalty imposed upon Anand Udyog, Shri A.B. Kanade and S.B. Kanade shall be waived and the recovery thereof shall be stayed.