2015 (6) TMI 1148 - HC - Central Excise

Principles of Natural Justice - the complaint of the appellant was that the third respondent, who was the Adjudicating Officer, is not supplying the copies of various documents, which were being relied on by him - Held that - We are not impressed by the pleas taken by the appellant as we have already noticed in view of the fact that the adjudicatory order has already been passed, necessarily the appellant will have to challenge it before the statutory Authority. That the appellant would have to deposit the amount, is an obligation attached to the filing of the appeal - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Failure to supply relied upon documents
- Adjudication order passed during pendency of writ petition
- Violation of natural justice and denial of right to cross-examination
- Obligation to deposit amount for filing appeal
- Dismissal of the appeal

Issue 1: Failure to supply relied upon documents
The petitioner, who is the appellant, sought a writ mandamus directing the third respondent to supply copies of relied upon documents as requested in several letters. The appellant complained that the Adjudicating Officer was not providing the documents being relied upon. The learned Single Judge passed an order as the adjudication order was issued during the pendency of the writ petition. The High Court noted that the appellant's request was for the documents to be provided and to prevent the third respondent from adjudicating until the remaining relied upon documents were supplied. As there was no interim order to stop proceedings, the adjudication concluded, leaving the option open for further remedy in appeal.

Issue 2: Adjudication order passed during pendency of writ petition
The High Court acknowledged that the adjudication order was issued by the Authority while the writ petition was pending, leading to the appellant's appeal. The appellant argued that the lack of document supply violated the principle of natural justice and denied the right to cross-examination. The Court observed that the appellant could challenge the adjudicatory order before the statutory Authority, emphasizing that the obligation to deposit an amount for filing an appeal is a standard requirement.

Issue 3: Violation of natural justice and denial of right to cross-examination
The appellant contended that the failure to provide documents amounted to a breach of natural justice and hindered the right to cross-examination. However, the Department's counsel asserted that the relevant documents were already provided to the appellant. The High Court was not persuaded by the appellant's arguments, stating that challenging the adjudication order before the statutory Authority is the appropriate course of action. The Court reiterated that the appellant could raise all contentions, including the lack of document provision and alleged violations of natural justice, during the appeal process.

Issue 4: Obligation to deposit amount for filing appeal
The appellant raised concerns about the requirement to deposit an amount for filing an appeal, citing potential injustice. The High Court clarified that depositing the specified amount is a necessary step when challenging an adjudicatory order. The Court affirmed that the appellant could present all arguments, including those related to document provision and natural justice violations, in the appeal proceedings.

Issue 5: Dismissal of the appeal
Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant could pursue further remedies before the statutory Authority. The Court made no order as to costs, concluding the judgment on the matter.