2009 (12) TMI 787 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against de novo adjudication order, Compliance with Tribunal's orders, Non-supply of necessary documents, Jurisdiction of Tribunal to entertain applications directly under Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

Analysis:
The judgment involves two applications filed directly in the Tribunal against a de novo adjudication order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, confirming a duty demand and imposing penalties. The applicants contend that the order of remand and miscellaneous order have not been complied with, and necessary documents have not been furnished, leading to the Tribunal prescribing a three-month time limit for fresh orders previously. The Senior Advocate argues that the Tribunal can entertain the present applications directly under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Rules due to non-compliance by the original authority and non-supply of directed documents, seeking to set aside the de novo order.

The Respondent, represented by JCDR, provides a detailed account of the events leading to the adjudication, including show cause notices, document supply, ex parte orders, and subsequent appeals. The Respondent highlights the non-cooperative attitude of the parties and the provision of voluminous documents to the applicants. The Respondent emphasizes that the impugned orders were passed relying only on provided documents, with those not supplied not considered in the adjudication process.

The Tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides, notes the provision for appeal against the adjudicating authority's order before the first appellate authority. The Tribunal observes that the department disputes the applicants' claims of non-supply of documents, asserting that substantial document copies were indeed provided. It is clarified that the impugned orders were based solely on the documents supplied to the applicants, with those not provided not influencing the decisions. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the applicants should approach the first appellate authority to address their grievances, including alleged non-supply of documents and non-compliance with Tribunal directions, rather than filing applications directly with the Tribunal. As a result, both applications are dismissed, emphasizing the need to follow the statutory appeal process.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the issues of compliance with Tribunal orders, non-supply of necessary documents, and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain direct applications under Rule 41. It underscores the importance of following the prescribed appeal process and seeking redressal through the appropriate appellate authority for grievances related to adjudication orders.