1989 (8) TMI 239 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Tribunal's power to compel the production of documents.
2. Applicability of Section 129C(7) of the Customs Act to the Central Excises and Salt Act.
3. Procedural aspects under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Tribunal's Power to Compel the Production of Documents:

The primary issue was whether the Tribunal has the power to compel the appellants to produce documents. The learned JDR argued that the Tribunal should direct the appellants to produce the statements relied upon in the show cause notice, as the original file was not traceable. He cited cases such as Metal Extruders (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Steel Cast Corporation to support his position.

The appellants, represented by Shri A.K. Jain, contended that the Tribunal lacks such power under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, unlike the Customs Act, which explicitly provides this power under Section 129C(7). Jain emphasized that Section 35D of the Central Excises and Salt Act does not incorporate sub-section (7) of Section 129C of the Customs Act, thereby limiting the Tribunal's power to compel document production.

2. Applicability of Section 129C(7) of the Customs Act to the Central Excises and Salt Act:

The Tribunal analyzed the legislative provisions of both the Customs Act and the Central Excises and Salt Act. It noted that Section 129C(6) of the Customs Act, which allows the Tribunal to regulate its own procedure, was made applicable to the Central Excises and Salt Act by Section 35D. The Tribunal concluded that sub-section (7) of Section 129C, which grants powers similar to those of a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, is an integral part of sub-section (6) and should be read together.

The Tribunal reasoned that the omission of sub-section (7) in Section 35D does not imply that the Tribunal lacks the power to compel document production. It emphasized that the powers enumerated in sub-section (7) are essential for the Tribunal to function effectively as a quasi-judicial authority.

3. Procedural Aspects under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982:

The Tribunal highlighted that Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, empowers it to make orders or give directions necessary to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice. The Tribunal found that directing a party to produce documents falls within procedural matters and is essential for the Tribunal to discharge its functions effectively.

The Tribunal cited the case of Harish Chandra v. Triloki Singh, where the Supreme Court held that procedural steps taken by a Tribunal include compelling document production. The Tribunal also referred to the Gujarat High Court's decision in Goverdhanbhai v. Parshottam, which interpreted Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure as empowering courts to regulate their procedure, including compelling document production.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that it possesses the power to order the production of documents under Section 35D(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act and Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. It directed the appellants to produce the statements relied upon in the show cause notice within four weeks. The Tribunal clarified that this direction was not a compulsion but a procedural step to secure the ends of justice, given the unavailability of the original records.

The Tribunal also noted that the Department could reconstruct the original record if possible and produce it before the Tribunal.

← Previous Next →