9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d counsel appearing for the appellant and M/s.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue. 3.The respondent Department issued show cause notice to the appellant calling upon them to show cause as to why the rebate amount of Rs. 15,84,083/- erroneously sanctioned to them should not be recovered under Section 11A(1) of the Act and as to why penalty should not be imposed on them and why interest should not be demanded. The assessee submitted their reply, sought for copies of the relied upon documents which were provided to the assessee and subsequently another request was made for furnishing copies of the document which not being relevant to the issue which was subject matter of the show cause notice, the request was not acceded to and ultimately, order dated 20.09.2006 was passed confirming the proposal in the show cause notice. The said order was challenged by the appellant by filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem. The appeal was allowed by order dated 26.03.2007 and the matter was remanded to the original authority with direction to supply the relied upon documents and if the documents are voluminous, the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e show cause notice to impose penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. Further, the learned counsel submitted that in an identical circumstances in the case of Adani Enterprises vs. Union of India [2015 (324) ELT(Madras)], identical orders were set aside by the learned Single Bench of this Court on the ground that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the authority ought to have taken note of the said decision and interfere with the order passed by the original authority. 6.The revenue seeks to sustain the impugned order by referring to the findings rendered by hierarchy of authorities as well as those recorded by the learned Writ Court. 7.The present litigation is a second round of litigation on the same issue. The claim for rebate which was made and received by the appellant was for the period from December 1998 to March 2000. When the Officers attached to the Headquarters, Preventive Unit, Coimbatore visited the M/s.Erode Rana Textile Processors Limited [M/s.ERTP], Bhavani on 06.09.2010 to verify the correctness as to whether they had accounted for the entire production properly in the statutory records, several incriminating documents were recovere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e documents to one of the much end exporters involved would not serve any purpose as the appellant before us would not be in a position to offer any other explanation to form opinion on this matter. Thus, according to the adjudicating authority, the third request of the appellant for supply of document was irrelevant and of no assistance to the appellant. 9.The correctness of the decision was questioned before the First Appellate Authority. On a reading of the order dated 28.05.2010, it is evidently clear that it is a reasoned order after considering all aspects including the contention advanced by the appellant that there has been violation of principles of natural justice in not supplying the documents sought for. The First Appellate Authority noted that the processor [M/s.ERTP] had not preferred any appeal and there is no dispute over the actual quantity of processed fabric produced by M/s.ERTP when the whole scheme of evasion through illicit design has been accepted as uncontested by M/s.ERTP, there would be no necessity to provide copies of the documents as requested by the appellant. Further, the First Appellate Authority noted that the Director of M/s.ERTP has himself admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and has rejected the same as not tenable. It would be relevant to note the finding recorded on this aspect which is as follows: "11.Insofar as the show cause notice issued to the petitioner herein is concerned, it is seen that the notice extended an opportunity to the petitioner to peruse the records relied upon by the department and take copies, if required, within 15 days of the receipt of the notice dated 12.12.2003. However, the petitioner had replied that that it was inconvenient for them to peruse the documents relied upon in the case and sought for copies of all the relied documents. The respondents had thereafter permitted the representative of the petitioner to inspect the documents on 01.08.2006 and 02.08.2006 as well as allowed them to take copies of certain documents. Pursuant to this, the petitioner had chosen to seek for further documents during the personal hearing and when the relevancy of such documents were questioned by the original authority, there was no satisfactory explanation from the petitioner's side. All the above said facts are reflected in the various orders passed by the authorities both before and after the remand. 12........... 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
