1985 (1) TMI 167 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Request for summoning original record of the Adjudicating authority and permitting inspection.
2. Claim of confidentiality by the Senior Departmental Representative (SDR) regarding certain papers in the file.
3. Opposition to the prayer for rectification of the order dated 13.9.1985 by the Consultant.
4. Consideration of the submissions from both sides regarding the inspection of the file.
5. Comparison with a previous case regarding the right to inspect records.
6. Decision on the application for withholding inspection and direction for file custody and inspection.

Analysis:

1. The appellants filed a Miscellaneous Petition seeking to summon the original record of the Adjudicating authority for inspection. The Bench ordered the submission of the records relating to the Order-in-original within a week for inspection by the appellant's representative.

2. The SDR submitted the file but raised concerns about confidentiality, stating that certain papers were of a confidential nature and should not be inspected by the other party. However, the Tribunal found no confidential papers in the file and noted that the SDR did not object during the previous hearing to make the file available for inspection.

3. The Consultant opposed the SDR's request for rectification of the order, arguing that the Tribunal lacked the power to review its own order. The Consultant emphasized the appellants' right to inspect the adjudication records and pointed out contradictions in the Order-in-Original.

4. After considering both parties' submissions and examining the file, the Tribunal concluded that there were no confidential papers justifying withholding inspection. The Tribunal also referenced a previous case where certain papers were allowed to be inspected, highlighting the difference in circumstances.

5. The Tribunal rejected the SDR's application for withholding inspection, emphasizing that there was no valid reason to recall the earlier order. The file was directed to be kept in the custody of the Deputy Registrar for inspection by the appellants' representative under supervision.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the right of the appellants to inspect the file and maintained that there was no basis for withholding inspection based on confidentiality claims. The decision was made after a thorough review of the file and consideration of arguments from both sides.