9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charges against the Appellant as per the Show Cause Notice were (i) That the Appellant had surreptitiously manufactured certain finished goods and scrap collectively valued at Rs. 4,23,89,739/- and clandestinely cleared the same without following procedure laid down by law as well as without payment of duty amounting to Rs. 67,82,358/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Lath Eighty Two Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Eight) only during the period from 3-4-2001 to 28-5-2003. Value of M.S. Pipe was calculated to be Rs. 4,10,33,344/- and value of strap was calculated to be Rs. 13,56,395/-. Value of the finished goods for the year 2002-03 and 2003-04 were calculated on the basis of invoice No. 66 dated 3-1-2003 and invoice No. 10 dated 7-5-2003 respectively. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Strips valued at Rs. 2,41,320/- involving Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 38,611/- without payment of Central Excise duty and without observing any Central Excise formalities. 1.2 Show Cause Notice was issued on the basis of the result of the investigation by Anti-Evasion squad on 28-5-03. Various documents and papers were recovered in the course of investigation. Stock taking was also done. Scrutiny of seized documents revealed that those were incriminating in nature and that was described in page 7 to 11 of the order of Adjudication under various captions indicating identification marks on the seized document. Under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 statement was recorded from various persons on different occasions and rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant against whom an ex parte order was passed. The applicant explained that delay was for reasons be yond the control of the appellant. Revenue's argument was fair to give opportunity to the appellant as a course to natural justice. Therefore, the delay in filing of appeal is condoned and the appeal should be admitted for hearing. 4.1 When stay application was taken up for hearing the ld. Counsel appearing for appellant submitted that huge demand was raised while factory of the Appellant was under closure from 2003 and in the mean time Managing Director Shri Binay Kr. Goel was out of employment. It was very difficult for the Appellant to take decision for preparation of defence reply in response to Show Cause Notice dated 23-3-06. Due to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defence. Therefore, the appellant deserves consideration and is entitled to copies of documents proposed to be used against them in the adjudication. In support of his submissions he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 (207) EL.T. 168 (S.C.) = 2007 (5) S.T.R. 3 (S.C.) and Madurai Metal Industries v. Union of India reported in 1990 (11) LCX 90. He prayed for remand of the matter to grant fair opportunity for a judicious adjudication. 5. Ld. R appearing for Revenue submitted that order of adjudication itself shows the manner how sufficient opportunities were given to the appellant for defence. But not only they failed to reply to S.C.N., they utterly failed to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egard. 7.2 We appreciate that grievance of violation of natural justice goes to the root of the matter and is incurable at the appellate stage. In the present case, we noticed that the seized documents which were proposed to be used against the Appellants should have been brought to light without being unilaterally used and those should have been confronted to the Appellants to examine relevancy thereof for appropriate defence plea. Once the aggrieved feels that its defence is founded on-the number of documents, facts and circumstances as well as the legal provisions, the Department cannot press its foot to cross the legal defence or the documentary evidences available to the aggrieved. It is fully the choice of the aggrieved to raise all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dyalaya Sungathan v. Girdharilal Yadav; (3)1994 (5) Sc 280 - The MaharashtraState Financial Corpn. v. M/s. Suvama Board Mills, JT; (4) 2004 (11) Sc (Supp.) 428 (para-47) - Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala, JT; (5) A.I.R 1985 SC 1416 - Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel; (6) '2001 (1) S.C.C. 182 - Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited v. Girji Shankar Pant; (7) A.I.R. 1977 SC 965 - Board of Mining Examination v. Ramjee; (8) A.I.R. 1972 SC 32 - Channabasappa v. State of Mysore. 7.6 We have also examined the citations made by the Ld. Counsel. But he fails to gain any benefit thereof for the reason that Proceedings were challenged in those cases at the show cause st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
