9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 513 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal of goods - recovery of incriminating documents - inspection of documents - principles of natural justice - Held that - It has to be noted that the search proceedings took place as early as 1999 and till date the relied upon documents have not been furnished to the assessee. The case laws relied upon by the ld. advocate is specifically on the point that the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Chandan Steel Ltd. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS Versus CHANDAN STEEL LTD. has quashed the proceedings under similar circumstances, where the documents relied upon by Revenue were not furnished even after the lapse of 19 years. In the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has given the finding that the documents have not only been given, but the same was not available with the adjudicating authority and were not even not made available to the appellate authority. Under the circumstances, I have no option, but to uphold the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal by Revenue challenging demand of duty and penalties based on seized documents during search; Allegation of clandestine removal of goods; Violation of principles of natural justice due to non-disclosure of seized documents; Adjudication without sharing relied upon documents with assessee; Challenge of impugned order by Revenue. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, regarding a demand of duty and penalties confirmed in an Order-in-Original dated 29.10.2009. The demand was based on a Show Cause Notice issued on 01.01.2001, subsequent to a search conducted on 29.01.1999 at the assessee's manufacturing premises, where excess stock of finished goods and raw materials was found and seized. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original due to the Department's failure to provide copies of the seized records, which formed the basis of the demand. The documents were never disclosed to the appellants, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice, according to the impugned order. 3. The Revenue challenged the impugned order, arguing that the Director had admitted to clandestine removal of goods and incriminating documents were recovered during the search. The non-retraction of the director's statement was cited as a reason to uphold the demand. 4. The advocate for the assessee contended that the seized documents were not made available to them, and the demand was dropped due to the absence of document disclosure. Citing the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's decision in a similar case, the advocate argued for quashing the proceedings due to the non-furnishing of relied-upon documents even after a significant period. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the documents were never provided to the assessee or the adjudicating authority, leading to a violation of natural justice. The reliance on case laws and the absence of document disclosure throughout the proceedings supported the decision to set aside the order and allow the appeal. 6. The judgment upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, emphasizing the importance of sharing relied-upon documents with the assessee for a fair adjudication process. The failure to provide documents even after many years and the absence of documents with the adjudicating authority justified setting aside the order based on principles of natural justice. 7. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was rejected, and the judgment was pronounced in open court on 04.11.2016.
|
