Judgment :- The Order of the Court is as follows :- The writ petition is filed seeking for a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent culminating in his order C. No. V/73.08/15/3/90, Adjourned, dated 8-8-1991 to quash the same and to remand the matter with a direction to the first respondent to give the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, copies of the replies of respondents 2 and 3 and a joint hearing of all parties. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in this case, the first respondent has violated the principles of natural justice as the replies so filed by respondents 2 and 3 have not been served on the petitioners. The other point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that after hearing the arguments made on behalf of the petitioners, the first respondent has not issued any notice of hearing in respect of subsequent dates when respondents 2 and 3 were heard. 3.The first respondent has heard the matter at length and it was entered in the impugened order that one Mr. Raghavan had argued the case of the petitioner, besides filing written submissions. The main contention raises before the first respondent on behalf of the petitioners was that since the entire process of manufacture and clearance of excisable goods had taken place with the knowledge of the department, the authority was not correct in invoking the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had requested the first respondent to decide the case subject to the submissions made by him. 4.The first and foremost point argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the petitioners were not heard again when respondents 2 and 3 were heard. In the impugned order at paragraph-65, the first respondent has stated that he went through the records of the case, replies and points argued in the personal hearing on behalf of the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3. 5.In Dirajmohan v. State of Orissa, the Apex Court has held that the rule regarding issue of notice would apply to the first date of hearing and thereafter, if the hearing is adjourned, it is unnecessary to give further notice for all the adjourned dates. 5.In Dirajmohan v. State of Orissa, the Apex Court has held that the rule regarding issue of notice would apply to the first date of hearing and thereafter, if the hearing is adjourned, it is unnecessary to give further notice for all the adjourned dates. In Nagendra Nath v. State of West Bengal 1957 AIR(Calcutta) 463), the Calcutta High Court has held that there is no necessity to send any notice of adjournment at all. 6.In R.V. Newmarket Assessment Committee, it has been observed that an adjourned hearing in continuation to one which is initially commenced is distinct from an adjourned hearing in alternation or in alteration to one originally started and while in the former case, a notice only of the first hearing is essential, in the latter case, a further notice is necessary as soon as the body of the tribunal proceedings with the hearing decides to change the items of any charge or switch over to any alternative procedure and the obligation to giving a notice, in fact, arises whenever a decision affecting the party is made or changed. 7.In this case, it is seen that the authority has not changed any item or switched over to any alternative procedure. Therefore, relying upon the above said judgments, it has to be held that no further notice of adjournment need be given to the petitioners. 8.The next point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were not served with copies of the replies filed by respondents 2 and 3. In the impugned order, in paragraph -89 , the first respondent has made it clear that he has not relied upon the replies and he relied only on the statements recorded from respondents 2 and 3 during investigation. As the replies filed by respondents 2 and 3 have not been relied upon, I see no ground to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the principles of natural justice have been violated. 9.The first respondent has found that there was deliberate suppression of fact and wilful mis-statement on the part of the petitioners with an intent to evade payment of duty. 9.The first respondent has found that there was deliberate suppression of fact and wilful mis-statement on the part of the petitioners with an intent to evade payment of duty. In the impugned order, it is mentioned that the petitioners had declared that the number of workers employed was less than 10 and availed exemption as per Notification No. 46/81, but on the basis of the available evidence on record, the first respondent has held that the petitioners had employed more than 10 workers in their factory and hence, they are not entitled to the exemption as per the said notification. The first respondent therefore held that the petitioners suppressed the fact with a view to evade payment of duty. The above conclusion was arrived at by the first respondent on the basis of the available evidence on record. 10. It is further stated that an appeal was preferred against the order and that appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the interim order passed in the appeal and the said order has become final. 11.In the above circumstances, I see no grounds to interfere in the writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. However, three months time from the date of receipt of this order is granted to the petitioners to make the payments. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps are closed.