2009 (9) TMI 776 - AT - Central Excise

Principles of Natural Justice - copies of the relied-upon and unrelied-upon documents seized from the premises of the Respondents were not returned to the assessees

Summary

Issues:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice due to non-supply of relied-upon and unrelied-upon documents.
2. Commissioner's power to remand the matter under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act.

Issue 1: Violation of principles of natural justice:
The Appeals were filed against an Order where the Commissioner (Appeals) found a violation of natural justice as relied-upon and unrelied-upon documents were not returned to the assessees. The Commissioner remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision after providing copies of the documents. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner had no power to remand the matter post the amendment under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act. The Revenue cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MIL India Ltd. v. CCE, Noida and the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CC, Amritsar v. Enkay (India) Rubber Co. Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the situation was peculiar as the Adjudicating Authority did not address the issue raised by the assessees regarding the documents. The matter was remanded to ensure compliance with natural justice principles, causing no prejudice to the Revenue's case.

Issue 2: Commissioner's power to remand under Section 35A:
The Tribunal referred to the decision in MIL India Ltd. and Enkay (India) Rubber Co. Pvt. Ltd. The Hon'ble Supreme Court acknowledged the amended provision of Section 35A, while the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the authority to remand the matter. However, in the present case, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner's decision to remand was justified to uphold natural justice. Citing the case of CCEX, Ahmedabad-I v. Medico Labs, the Tribunal emphasized that even after the amendment to Section 35A, the Commissioner retains the power to remand. This view was supported by previous decisions of the Tribunal. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Umesh Dhaimode, affirming the Appellate Authority's discretion to confirm, modify, or annul decisions under appeal. The power to remand was deemed consistent with this authority, and the Appeals were ultimately dismissed.

---