TMI Blog2001 (6) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. During the arguments advanced by both sides, it appeared that on a point of law the appeals themselves were capable of being decided. For the reasons to follow, we do so on granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty as prayed for in these applications. 3. M/s. Shivom Ply-N-Wood Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called as Shivom ) and M/s. Shivshankar Plywood Inds. Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called as Shivshankar ) are private limited companies. Mrs. K.D. Wadhwa is the director of Shivom. In actual practice it was D.L. Wadhwa, Director of Shivshankar, who was looking after the operation of both the units. Shivom were manufacturing block boards and plywood. Shivshankar were manufacturing veneer, resins and also plywood. Shivom were selling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied to the Commissioner pointing out the particular documents, the copies of which were requested by them to be furnished. It appears that there was no further supply or correspondence but that the Commissioner passed ex parte orders on 31-10-2000. He made the following observation :- The personal hearing was fixed on 13-6-2000 but neither the assessee nor any representative of the assessee appeared before me. Further noticee at Sr. No. 2 to 9 also not appeared before me. Shri V.L. Kelkar, authorised representative of M/s. Geeta Timber and Plywood, Nashik, M/s. Anjali Plywood, Nashik appeared before me on 13-6-2000, both the noticees have filed their written reply on 28-4-2000 with this office and I am considering the same. 4. He conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the copies of the documents relied upon and in not affording an opportunity to the noticees to be heard, the learned Commissioner had contravened the principles of natural justice thereby rendering both his orders as untenable. Smt. Arya submitted that the proceedings would show that on at least four occasions the assessees had been given liberty to and had in fact attended the office to take relevant copies. It was her submission that the assessees were using dilatory tactics to postpone the proceedings. She cited the Supreme Court s order in the case of Sanghi Textile Processors (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., 1993 (65) E.L.T. 357 where the Supreme Court had observed that the department could not reasonably supply copies of each and every document. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed was adequate; the extent and content of the information to be disclosed would depend upon the facts of each case. We fully endorse the aforesaid view. 7. Having considered both the submissions and the judgments, we asked Shri Prakash Shah whether the documents which were asked for but not given were of such magnitude as to effectively deny due representation to the assessees. It is his submission that the documents are such as would establish the correctness or otherwise of the quantum of demand and therefore there is no question of their being extremely material. 8. Shri Prakash Shah also showed us the Tribunal judgment reported in [2001 (130) E.L.T. 697 = 2000 (40) RLT 1012] (Pro-Fashional Computers Anr. v. C.C.E.) in which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not have put forth in writing, could be advanced or where there are any grey areas in the written submissions, they could be clarified. Due to the volume of the documents very often the prime requirement of supply of copies along with the show cause notice is not fulfilled, but unless each and every document relied upon is furnished to the assessee, the department cannot expect a reply from them. If the department feels that frequent request for supply of copies is a dilatory tactics, then it has to be said that the need for such request arises only because of the failure of the department to supply copies of each and every document relied upon at the time of service of the show cause notice. Once this responsibility is cast upon the depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omplete replies within 30 days of the receipt of the documents from the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall give the present appellants a clear notice of three weeks for personal hearing. All the appellants will be bound to appear before him and make proper submissions. 13. These appeals are allowed by way of remand. 14. [Order per : G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)]. - I agree with the order dictated by my learned brother. I endorse the view made by him. The amount involved in both cases is nearly rupees eight crores and the department should take a proper action in giving the copies. These things would not have been dragged out. Therefore with a very heavy heart I have to allow the appeal and remand the matter. I agree with the order prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
