2013 (3) TMI 319 - AT - Central Excise

Non providing of copies of documents seized from the appellants - as per the assessee they are deprived of natural justice to lead their defence - in spite of repeated prayer to provide copies of challans by the appellants the authorities provided blank challans to the appellant which were without signature of the appellants - Held that - As in the case of CCE, Kolkata-II v. Giriraj Industries (2007 (11) TMI 112 - CESTAT KOLKATA) affirmed by the Calcutta HC in 2008 (8) TMI 773 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT , where negligence of investigation has come to record. If investigating authority fails to provide copies of seized documents and if the documents provided was altogether different from the seized documents that deprives the litigant from the course of natural justice. Not only injury is caused to interest of justice but negligent officers make the investigation result fatal. Once the material used against the appellants could not see the light of the day and 8 years have already been passed there may not serve any useful purpose, if the matter is remanded back for redoing adjudication. Being guided by the decision of Orissa Bridge & Construction Corpn. Ltd. v. CCE, Bhubaneswar 2008 (8) TMI 585 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA litigation should be brought to an end allowing the appeal. Consequently, all the three appeals are allowed.

Summary

Issues: Failure to provide copies of seized documents, Deprivation of natural justice, Negligence in investigation

In this case, the appellant's representative argued that despite an investigation in 2004, the authorities did not provide copies of seized documents to the appellants, leading to a lack of crucial evidence for their defense. The representative highlighted that the summary of a statement showed discrepancies in the provided challans, which were unsigned by the appellants. The failure to provide essential documents was emphasized as a violation of natural justice, citing precedents like the Orissa Bridge & Construction Corpn. Ltd. case. The appellant contended that the department's negligence in providing necessary materials hindered their ability to present a proper defense, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness.

The appellant further argued that the prolonged delay in issuing a show cause notice after a lengthy investigation period was unacceptable, citing previous court judgments that disapproved of such negligent investigative practices. The representative pointed out that the failure to produce crucial documents during the appellate process deprived the appellants of their right to a fair hearing, echoing the principles of natural justice. The appellant asserted that the department's consistent failure to provide seized documents undermined the adjudication process and should absolve the appellants from any adverse consequences.

On the contrary, the Departmental Representative defended the appellate order, claiming that the issue of blank challans raised by the appellants was addressed in the appellate authority's decision. However, the appellant's representative argued that the material produced before the appellate authority did not align with the seized documents, emphasizing the significance of accurate and complete evidence in legal proceedings. The presiding judge noted the importance of investigative diligence and the detrimental impact of negligent practices on the administration of justice. Considering the prolonged duration of the case and the lack of essential evidence, the judge decided to allow the appeals, bringing the litigation to a close in line with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.