9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T) and Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J) Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri K.K. Biswas, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. - Ex. Appeal No. 19/2007. The first Appellant is in this appeal who has sought redressal before Tribunal against the common Order of Adjudication dated 26-9-06 passed by ld. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur making following levies: (i) Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 11,80,685/- on the allegation of non-inclusion of packing charges in assessable value under Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 against M/s. Sri Vasavi Industries (Ferro Alloy Division); (ii) Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 48,25,374/- under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 by the common order of adjudication dated 26-9-06. 2.1 Learned Consultant, Shri B. N. Chattopadhyay, appearing for the Appellant submitted that even though search was conducted on 18-12-03 and the Show-cause Notice was issued on 4-6-04, adjudication was done in 2006 depriving the Appellant to get copies of relevant documents used against the Appellant. Several prayers were made by Appellants for such documents. But the Authorities have paid deaf ear. The Appellant being entitled to right of defence, denial of copies of relevant documents is denial of justice. For no supply of copies of relevant documents, Appellants were prevented to lead proper defence. 2.2 Ld. Con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incurable at the appellate stage. In the present case, we notice that the seized documents which are proposed to be used against the Appellant should be brought to light and copies thereof, should be supplied to the Appellant for approprate defence plea. Once the aggrieved feels that its defence 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 defences, which are available to him under the law and learned Authority of the Department would only consider the defences and reject the same, if the same are not in accordance with l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
