Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 813 - AT - Central ExciseModification of stay order - Waiver of pre deposit - certain documents relied upon by the adjudicating authority were not provided to assessee - Violation of principle of natural justice - Held that:- Number of personal hearing dates were fixed by the adjudicating authority as detailed in his order. On being questioned as to whether intimation about the alternate address was made by them to the appellate authority, Ld. Advocate fairly agrees that there is no such intimation, but the DGCEI knew about the residential address. adjudicating authority before whom the matter was pending for decision is entirely different from DGCEI, whose role ends with the completion of investigations. The adjudicating authority cannot be expected to find out the new address of the noticee from the DGCEI. Undoubtedly, it is the duty of the noticee to bring or to place the new address for correspondence before the adjudicating authority, which the applicants have failed to do so. As is clear from the letter, the applicants authorised representative visited the office on 19th, 20th and 22nd July, 2010, but did not take the photocopies of the documents as according to him, the same were not complete and missing in between. We really fail to understand that what prevented the appellants authorised representative to take the photocopies of the documents, which were available in the office. He was within his rights to subsequently refer to the missing documents and to make further request for supply of the same. However, instead, he has chosen not to take the documents at all, in which case, the Revenue authorities cannot be blamed for. We also note that though the impugned order was passed on 27.03.2012, i.e., almost after a period of around two years from the said letter addressed by the applicants, the applicants have not approached the Revenue subsequently for supply of the documents. No efforts stand made by them to procure the documents and to file the detailed reply. This clearly reflects the delaying tactics on their part. - Modification application rejected.
|