9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Adjudication based on show-cause notice, non-supply of relied-upon documents, denial of natural justice.
Adjudication based on show-cause notice: The impugned order was passed in adjudication of a show-cause notice dated 25-6-2003 issued by the Additional Director-General in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Chennai. The notice referred to documents listed in Annexures and stated that the original records were available with the Deputy Director, DRI, Regional Unit, Hyderabad. The appellants claimed that the documents listed in Annexure - C were not supplied to them despite repeated requests to defer adjudication until they obtained the documents. The Commissioner's order acknowledged the appellants' requests for extensions to reply to the notice, but the appellants contested the claim that they had not requested a personal hearing since 16-1-2004. The appellants received the relevant records from the DRI office in Hyderabad only after the impugned order was passed. Non-supply of relied-upon documents: After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found fault with the adjudication process followed by the Commissioner. The show-cause notice indicated that the relied-upon documents were in the Hyderabad office of the DRI, which was why copies were not provided to the noticee. The Tribunal questioned whether the show-cause notice was issued without seeing those documents. It criticized the adjudicating authority for directing the party to obtain the documents from the DRI Unit in Hyderabad but then proceeding with the adjudication without allowing them to access the documents. The Tribunal deemed this as a violation of natural justice. Denial of natural justice: The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication in compliance with the law and principles of natural justice. The Tribunal emphasized that the party must be given a fair opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice and to be personally heard. Both appeals, one by M/s. Model Steels (P) Ltd. and the other by the Managing Director of the company, were allowed by way of remand, ensuring a fair process moving forward.
|
