2014 (9) TMI 810 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of goods - Redemption fine - violation of principles of natural justice - Non supply of relied upon documents - Held that - matter could not be decided for a long period on account of the injunction by the Hon ble High Court, which was vacated on 16/09/10 only. Thereafter the appellants have made requests for the supply of relied upon documents. Though the Commissioner refers the supply of the documents, but it is not clear as to whether the same was supplied to the main assessee M/s R.K. Cigarettes P. Ltd. or not. The statement made by the learned advocate, at bar, is to the effect that there are no acknowledgements given by them, evidencing any receipt of relied upon documents. This fact is required to be verified and if the acknowledgement receipts referred to by the Commissioner in his order are not by M/s R.K. Cigarettes P. Ltd., they have to be provided the relied upon documents. As regards the supply of non-relied upon documents, the said fact stand accepted by the Commissioner but he has referred to the fact that the appellant had refused to take delivery of the notice, sent to them for collection of the said documents. Without commenting upon the same, we note that the non relied upon documents do not stand supplied to the appellant and as such they have to be given a chance for the same. Appellant s request for cross-examination has not been dealt by the Adjudicating Authority at all. We further note that as recorded in para 6.12 of the order there is no defence reply by the appellant. As per the learned advocate the reply was not filed as the inspection was not completed and the supply of the relied upon documents as also the non relied upon documents was not completed. He also submits that the matter was pending for a long 12 years not on account of any fault by the appellant as made out by the Adjudicating Authority but the adjudication proceedings could not be completed on account of the injunction by the Hon ble High Court till 16/09/10 - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in adjudication proceedings, supply of relied upon and non-relied upon documents, cross-examination rights, defense reply filing, delay in proceedings.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The judgment involved a case where the Adjudicating Authority passed an order confirming a demand against multiple parties without proper adherence to principles of natural justice. The main appellant, M/s R.K. Cigarettes P. Ltd., raised concerns about not receiving relied upon documents despite requests and inspections. The Commissioner's order mentioned the supply of documents to "some parties," which the appellant disputed by stating they did not receive any such documents with acknowledgments. The absence of defense replies and the long-pending nature of the case due to a High Court injunction raised questions about procedural fairness.

Supply of Documents:
The appellant requested relied upon documents and non-relied upon documents for inspection and cross-examination. The Adjudicating Authority's order indicated that some documents were provided, but the appellant contested not receiving them with acknowledgments. The judgment highlighted discrepancies in the delivery of non-relied upon documents and the lack of further inspection opportunities for the appellant. The appellant's inability to complete inspections due to the volume of seized documents and the need for cross-examination were also crucial aspects discussed.

Cross-Examination and Defense Reply:
The judgment noted that the Adjudicating Authority did not address the appellant's request for cross-examination. Additionally, the absence of a defense reply from the appellant was attributed to incomplete document inspections and deliveries. The appellant emphasized the 12-year delay in proceedings, partly caused by a High Court injunction, to justify the lack of a defense reply. The judgment highlighted the importance of addressing these issues to ensure procedural fairness and compliance with natural justice principles.

Delay in Proceedings:
The case's prolonged duration, impacted by a High Court injunction until a specific date, was a significant factor in the judgment. The appellant's requests for document supplies, inspections, and cross-examination were affected by this delay, leading to concerns about fairness and the need for a fresh decision. The judgment emphasized the necessity for the Commissioner to reevaluate the disputed issues, complete proceedings within six months, and ensure cooperation from all parties involved to avoid unnecessary adjournments.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the critical issues of procedural fairness, document supply, cross-examination rights, defense reply filing, and the impact of delays on adjudication proceedings. The judgment's focus on upholding natural justice principles and ensuring a fair and timely resolution underscores the importance of procedural integrity in legal processes.