2016 (8) TMI 382 - AT - Central Excise

Validity of impugned order - Violation of principle of natural justice - Order passed in the absence of appellants - absence of relied upon and resumed documents (RUD) - Held that - the impugned order stand passed in the absence of the appellants as such without observing as to who is at fault, the assessee or the Revenue, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand all the matters to the original Adjudicating Authority for de-novo consideration. Needless to say that the appellant would be provided with the production/dispatch register, delivery challan and delivery advices. - Appeal disposed of by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in providing relied upon documents to the appellant leading to violation of natural justice.
2. Allegations of clandestine activities against the appellant.
3. Adjudication process and the appellant's right to defense.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of UPSS, inverters, and transformers, faced allegations of clandestine activities following a visit by Central Excise Officers. Records were seized, and proceedings were initiated based on post-seizure investigation. The appellant sought photocopies of relied upon documents to prepare their defense, but delays in providing these documents led to the violation of natural justice.

2. The Adjudicating Authority provided multiple opportunities for the appellant to procure photocopies, but the process was prolonged, impacting the appellant's ability to respond effectively. The appellant's contention was that despite repeated visits to obtain documents, they were unable to fully collect the required information, hindering their defense preparation.

3. The appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority's scheduling of personal hearings immediately after document collection dates impeded their ability to adequately prepare. The appellant highlighted the importance of certain documents, such as production and dispatch registers, delivery challans, and advices, which were not supplied by the Revenue, affecting their defense strategy.

4. The Adjudicating Authority accused the appellant of intentionally delaying proceedings, alleging a malafide intent. However, the appellant emphasized ongoing correspondence with the Revenue during the relevant period, indicating a lack of malicious intent. Legal references were made to emphasize the necessity of promptly supplying relied upon documents to ensure a fair adjudication process.

5. Upon examination, the Tribunal found that the impugned order was passed in the absence of the appellants, necessitating a remand for de-novo consideration. The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to provide the necessary documents to the appellant within a specified timeframe to enable a proper response. The appeals were disposed of by way of remand, ensuring the appellant's right to a fair adjudication process.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of delayed document provision, allegations of clandestine activities, and the importance of a fair adjudication process in the legal proceedings.