2014 (8) TMI 813 - AT - Central Excise

Modification of stay order - Waiver of pre deposit - certain documents relied upon by the adjudicating authority were not provided to assessee - Violation of principle of natural justice - Held that - Number of personal hearing dates were fixed by the adjudicating authority as detailed in his order. On being questioned as to whether intimation about the alternate address was made by them to the appellate authority, Ld. Advocate fairly agrees that there is no such intimation, but the DGCEI knew about the residential address. adjudicating authority before whom the matter was pending for decision is entirely different from DGCEI, whose role ends with the completion of investigations. The adjudicating authority cannot be expected to find out the new address of the noticee from the DGCEI. Undoubtedly, it is the duty of the noticee to bring or to place the new address for correspondence before the adjudicating authority, which the applicants have failed to do so. As is clear from the letter, the applicants authorised representative visited the office on 19th, 20th and 22nd July, 2010, but did not take the photocopies of the documents as according to him, the same were not complete and missing in between. We really fail to understand that what prevented the appellants authorised representative to take the photocopies of the documents, which were available in the office. He was within his rights to subsequently refer to the missing documents and to make further request for supply of the same. However, instead, he has chosen not to take the documents at all, in which case, the Revenue authorities cannot be blamed for. We also note that though the impugned order was passed on 27.03.2012, i.e., almost after a period of around two years from the said letter addressed by the applicants, the applicants have not approached the Revenue subsequently for supply of the documents. No efforts stand made by them to procure the documents and to file the detailed reply. This clearly reflects the delaying tactics on their part. - Modification application rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay petitions disposal based on prima facie findings.
2. Challenge of Tribunal's stay order in High Court.
3. Failure to submit written submissions and attend hearings.
4. Allegation of violation of principles of natural justice.
5. Delaying tactics in procuring documents and filing replies.
6. Duty of Revenue to supply documents and applicant's responsibility.
7. Failure to provide alternate address for correspondence.
8. Decision on merits of the case and direction for pre-deposit.

Issue 1:
The Tribunal disposed of stay petitions based on prima facie findings against M/s. Alcome Overseas Pvt. Ltd., directing them to deposit Rs. 60 lakhs out of a total demand of Rs. 2,29,68,446. The Tribunal considered the merits of the case in detail before arriving at the prima facie finding.

Issue 2:
The High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur, considered a challenge to the Tribunal's stay order. The High Court noted the plea of violation of principles of natural justice due to certain documents not being provided to the applicants. However, the High Court observed that such submissions were not raised before the CESTAT, allowing the applicants time to seek clarifications or modifications.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal highlighted the failure of the appellants to submit written submissions and attend hearings, leading to the decision to proceed based on available records. The delay in filing submissions was noted, with the appellate authority left with no choice but to proceed with the case.

Issue 4:
The applicants alleged a violation of natural justice, citing the non-supply of documents by the Revenue. However, the Tribunal found that the applicants failed to take necessary steps to procure the documents, reflecting delaying tactics on their part. The Tribunal emphasized the responsibility of the applicants to actively engage in the process.

Issue 5:
The Tribunal addressed the duty of the Revenue to supply documents and the applicants' role in procuring them. Despite opportunities provided, the applicants delayed proceedings and did not correspond effectively with the adjudicating authority, impacting the progress of the case.

Issue 6:
Regarding the failure to provide an alternate address for correspondence, the Tribunal noted that the applicants did not inform the adjudicating authority about their closed factory and failed to update contact details. The responsibility to provide accurate correspondence details lies with the noticee, and the Tribunal found no merit in the applicants' contentions.

Issue 7:
In the decision on the merits of the case and the direction for pre-deposit, the Tribunal rejected the Miscellaneous Applications for modification of the stay order. The Tribunal found the directions for pre-deposit just and proper, providing a twelve-week period for compliance.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the various issues involved, including stay petitions disposal, challenges in the High Court, failure to submit written submissions, allegations of violation of natural justice, delaying tactics, duty of Revenue, responsibility of applicants, failure to provide an alternate address, and the decision on merits with directions for pre-deposit.