1999 (6) TMI 239 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Application for waiver of duty demand and penalty due to lack of opportunity for defense.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed an application seeking waiver of duty demand and penalty, alleging that the order-in-original was passed without giving them a reasonable opportunity to defend their case. The appellants claimed that they had requested copies of relied-upon documents, essential for preparing their defense, but only received copies of invoices. The adjudication order was argued to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellants' consultant highlighted that all records of the appellants' firm were taken into possession during the visit of Excise Officials.

2. The Revenue, represented by the JDR, contended that the relied-upon documents were indeed supplied to Shri Vikas Sapra, the representative and son of the Proprietor, on 17-11-1997. The JDR produced a photocopy of the receipt acknowledging the receipt of the relied-upon documents by Shri Vikas Sapra. It was argued that all necessary documents were provided to the appellants before the adjudication order was passed, thereby refuting the appellants' claim of lack of opportunity for defense.

3. Upon hearing both sides, it was observed that the appellants' records were seized by the Revenue authority during the visit of Excise officers, and the relied-upon documents were not supplied to the appellants before the impugned order was passed. The JDR's submission of a letter dated 17-11-1997, indicating the receipt of relied-upon documents by Shri Vikas Sapra, was considered. However, it was noted that not all records taken into possession were returned to the appellants for defense preparation, as evidenced by the letter dated 17-11-1997. In light of these circumstances, the balance of convenience was found to be in favor of the appellants.

4. Consequently, the application for waiver of duty demand and penalty was allowed. The deposit of the total duty demand and penalty was waived for the appeal hearing, and the recovery of the same was stayed during the pendency of the appeal. The Registry was directed to schedule the appeal for hearing on a specified date, ensuring due process and opportunity for the appellants to present their case effectively.