2017 (5) TMI 869 - AT - Central Excise

Principles of natural justice - Clandestine manufacture and removal - manmade fabrics - confiscation of goods - penalty - Held that - when the assessee is requesting to release the documents withdrawn under Panchanama, it is incumbent on the adjudicating authority to return the documents particularly when the same is not relied upon. Even if it is relied upon, the documents have to be given to the assessee. Therefore, the denial of release of the documents on one or other pretext by the adjudicating authority is clear violation of principles of natural justice. In this fact, the matter needs to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Recovery of Central Excise duty on suppression of production and removal of fabrics, non-accounted processed fabrics, confiscation of seized goods, imposition of penalty under Central Excise Rules, violation of principles of natural justice regarding withheld documents, remand for release of documents for defense, violation of principles of natural justice by denying release of documents, direction for de novo adjudication order within four months.

Analysis:

1. Recovery of Central Excise Duty:
The appellants were engaged in manufacturing cotton and manmade fabrics, with a show-cause notice issued for the recovery of Central Excise duty on the suppression of production and removal of manmade fabrics, along with non-accounted processed fabrics. The duty sought to be recovered amounted to ?1,28,09,535, and confiscation of seized goods valued at ?8,87,177 was also proposed, along with penalties under Central Excise Rules.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - Withheld Documents:
The appellants contended that various documents crucial for their defense were withdrawn under Panchanama during the investigation but were not provided to them, hindering their ability to present a conclusive defense. The denial of access to these documents was argued to be a violation of principles of natural justice, as it impeded the appellants from effectively challenging the allegations raised in the show-cause notice.

3. Remand for Release of Documents and Defense Opportunity:
The appellant's counsel requested a remand of the matter to obtain the seized records, which they believed would support their defense against the allegations of clandestine removal and incorrect quantum in the show-cause notice. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' right to access these documents for a fair defense, emphasizing that every assessee must be given a sufficient opportunity to defend their case in accordance with principles of natural justice.

4. Direction for De Novo Adjudication Order:
Considering the age of the case and the necessity to uphold principles of natural justice, the Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to release the seized documents to the appellants and provide them with ample opportunity to present their defense. A de novo adjudication order was mandated to be passed within four months from the date of the Tribunal's order, ensuring a fair and timely resolution of the matter.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, highlighting the key arguments, violations of natural justice, and the Tribunal's directives for remand and de novo adjudication.