9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilable to the assessee, no proceeding can be concluded. Principles of Natural Justice - Held that:- Confirmation of demand without providing the relied upon documents is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Observance of the principles of natural justice is foremost requirement in any of the judicial proceeding, irrespective of any grave nature of the case, therefore, the demand, without making available the relied upon documents to the appellant, cannot sustain. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/340-342/2009-SM - A/12034-12036/2018 - Dated:- 28-9-2018 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri. N.K.Oza(Advocate) For the Respondent : Shri. L.Patra (AR) ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 10.01.2007 whereby a demand of duty amounting to ₹ 1,05,404/- was confirmed and remaining duty was dropped. The penalty of equal amount was also imposed under Section 11AC. Against the confiscation of Land Building, plant and Machinery and redemption fine of ₹ 15,000/- was imposed, however, penalty of ₹ 20,000/- under Rule 173 Q(1), ₹ 2,000/- under Rule 27 and ₹ 25,000/- under Rule 26 on Shri. Mahendra Duggad was imposed. Being aggrieved by the Order in Original dated 10.01.2007 appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals)-Ahmadabad, who Vide Order in Appeal No. 167 168/2007 (Ahmedabad-I) dated 27.04.2007 upheld the duty so confirmed by the Original Authority but reduced the redemption fine fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on the basis of which the entire demand was made, could not be provided by the adjudicating authority. He submits that the adjudicating authority in para 1.21 of adjudication order dated 10.01.2007 clearly admitted that the documents mentioned in serial No. 17 to 25 have been misplaced by the division office, therefore, demand should not have been confirmed without said relied upon documents. 3. Shri. L.Patra, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. Without going into the detailed findings of both the authorities, I first examing the facts about the relied upon docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was not available on record. The said judgment of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported at Commissioner Vs. Orian System- 2006 (196) ELT A32 (SC). In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Ludhiana Vs. Gulab Industry 2012 (279) ELT 74 (Tri. Del) it was held as under:- 6 Since our attention has been drawn to the order passed by the adjudicating authority in this regard, we are constrained to observe that the said observations rather than lending any support to the argument sought to be canvassed on behalf of the department, clearly justify the view taken by us in the order dated 6-7-2010. The observation of the adjudicating authority quoted above clearly refers to the stage prior to the commencement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
