2017 (4) TMI 310 - AT - Customs

Principles of natural justice - all the RUDs were received by assessee in person under dated acknowledgment on 14/08/2014 but some other documents which were not made RUDs in the show cause notice were being asked for by the appellant - whether such non relied upon documents which are not having any direct bearing in the case, the appellants persistent request for said documents, without any plausible explanation, is justified? Held that - such type of observation made by the adjudicating authority is neither legally appreciable nor correct in as much as it is for the assessee to adjudge as to which documents are relevant for his defence. If the Revenue has chosen to rely only upon some of the documents recovered from the assessee, it is the duty of the Revenue to return all the balance documents on which no reliance stand placed by them. For the said reason we find no merits in the Ld. DRs objection that first the appellant should give a list of all the non relied upon documents which they needed to procure. The non RUDs are required to be returned back to the person from whose possession same were taken and it should be left to the assessee to find out as to whether the same are relevant or not. On account of non supply of documents, detailed submission could not be made by the assessee. Without commenting upon the fact as to whose fault it is, the fact remains that the adjudication has taken place without the defence plea of the appellant being on record. For such reasons, we are compelled to set aside the impugned order and remand all the matters to adjudicating authority for fresh decision - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Violation of principles of natural justice in the adjudication process.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
The judgment revolves around the violation of principles of natural justice in the adjudication process. The appellants were not given a fair opportunity to present their case as the adjudication took place without hearing them. The Ld. Advocate acknowledged that the appellants were not heard and did not have the final reply of the notices before them. The appellants could not attend the initial hearings due to being in jail, and their subsequent requests for documents were not adequately addressed. The adjudicating authority noted the lack of participation by the appellants and their persistent requests for non-relied upon documents without a plausible explanation.

Issue 2: Request for Non-Relied Upon Documents
The appellants requested non-relied upon documents, which the adjudicating authority deemed irrelevant to the case. The Ld. DR for the Revenue argued that the appellants did not specify the non-relied upon documents they sought. However, the Tribunal held that it is the appellants' right to determine the relevance of documents for their defense. The Tribunal emphasized that all non-relied upon documents should be returned to the appellants for their assessment of relevance, rather than requiring a list from the appellants.

Issue 3: Lack of Detailed Submission
Due to the non-supply of documents and the absence of the appellants in subsequent hearings, a detailed submission could not be made on behalf of the appellants. The Tribunal acknowledged that the adjudication occurred without the defense plea of the appellants being on record. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and all matters were remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision.

Conclusion:
The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in the adjudication process. It emphasizes the right of appellants to access all relevant documents for their defense and the necessity of a fair opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order and remand the matters for a fresh decision underscores the significance of procedural fairness in legal proceedings.