Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957
Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... vs Stadfast Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. on 2 June, 2003
Mr. P.D. Desai was neither an authorized agent nor he was an employee of the appellants when the copies of the notices were given to him. The appellants contention that the notice was not served on the appellants has to be therefore accepted. , , Allahabad refers it is also argued that mere marking of the copy of the show cause notice does not make a person receiving such a copy an respondent unless he/she is asked to respond to the charges mentioned in the notice. The appellants relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE v. Star Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. to contend that it is the corrigendum which should be considered as a notice for the appellants to reply and not the original notice itself. These are numerous decisions which lay down that mere marking of copy of a show cause notice without asking the person to reply to the allegations is not enough. The Commissioner contention that the corrigendum cannot be considered as a fresh show cause notice is also not acceptable because the corrigendum changed the very basis of the show cause notice and made the appellants responsible for the first time for various acts they seemed to have committed in evading duty during the period 1988 to March, 1993.
1