2017 (11) TMI 342 - HC - Central Excise

Principles of Natural Justice - Whether non supply of resumed records which are relied upon in SCN and adjudication order constitute violation of principles of natural justice, when not provided in spite of preliminary objections and request letters? - Whether onus of proving classification was on the part of appellant when all the resumed and relied upon documents were not supplied to him in spite of repeated requests? Held that - It is well settled principle of law that the person who is to take an action is required to supply basic documents, which sought to be relied upon. The documents though referred in the show cause notice were not given to the assessee by the Tribunal - The Tribunal has seriously committed an error in dealing with issue in view of the decision of this Court in case of P.G.O. Processors Private Limited vs. Commissioner, C.Ex., 2000 (1) TMI 59 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR the documents which are required to be given to the assessee. The matter is remitted to the first authority. The petitioner will appear before the first authority on 06.11.2017 and authority will settle the matter within a period of four weeks - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to Tribunal's confirmation of Commissioner's order, violation of principles of natural justice due to non-supply of documents, onus of proving classification, delay tactics in proceedings, error in Tribunal's decision, reliance on previous case law.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to Tribunal's Confirmation:
The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision affirming the Commissioner's order. The Court framed substantial questions of law related to the non-supply of documents and the onus of proving classification. The appellant contended that specific documents were not provided despite requests, leading to a violation of natural justice principles.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant raised concerns about the non-supply of documents, including those dated 15.01.2004, which were not provided despite requests in the reply to the show cause notice. The authority's reliance on undisclosed documents was disputed by the appellant, highlighting a potential breach of natural justice principles.

3. Onus of Proving Classification:
The authority calculated the taxable value based on records resumed during a search, leading to a dispute regarding the onus of proving classification. The appellant argued that without access to all relevant documents, proving classification was challenging, emphasizing the importance of document disclosure for a fair adjudication process.

4. Delay Tactics in Proceedings:
The respondent accused the appellant of employing delay tactics by raising contentions after multiple replies were filed. The timing of raising objections was questioned as an attempt to prolong the proceedings, indicating a strategic move rather than a genuine concern.

5. Error in Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal's failure to ensure the supply of relied-upon documents to the assessee was deemed erroneous. Citing a previous court decision, it was emphasized that providing authenticated copies of relevant documents is crucial for a fair adjudication process, and the Tribunal's oversight in this regard was highlighted as a significant error.

6. Reliance on Previous Case Law:
The Court referred to a previous case where the necessity of supplying authenticated copies of relied-upon documents was underscored. Relying on legal precedents, the Court directed the first authority to provide authentic copies of relevant documents to the appellant before proceeding with the adjudication, emphasizing the importance of document disclosure in legal proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the appeal, remitting the matter back to the first authority to ensure the supply of necessary documents to the appellant. The Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals) orders were set aside, emphasizing the significance of document disclosure in upholding principles of natural justice and fair adjudication processes.