TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that too at first stage, giving relief to the aggrieved party and at later stage, taking away such relief and if it is allowed, in my opinion it would certainly lead to travesty of justice as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Writ Petition Nos.13672 to 13675 of 2015 And M.P.Nos.1 to 1 & 2 to 2 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 4-8-2015 - S.Vaidyanathan, J For the Petitioner : Mr.Karthik Sundaram For the Respondents : Mr.V.Kadhirvelu And Mr.V.Sundareswaran, SPC ORDER Since the issues involved in all these writ petitions are co-related and the parties are one and the same, these Writ Petitions are taken up together for final disposal. 2. M/s.Adani Enterprises Limited, the petitioner herein, is primarily engaged in import and export of various commodities including textiles. In the process of business of import and export of various goods, the petitioner have procured grey woven power loom fabrics from various places and got them processed at M/s.Erode Rana Textitle Processors Ltd., Erode and thereafter, they exported to various foreign countries. The petitioner claimed rebate of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent/adjudicating authority itself has categorically held that there is no necessity to provide copies of documents sought for by the petitioner. This view of the 5th respondent was also confirmed by the 4th respondent/Commissioner (Appeals) having convinced with the findings of the lower authority who passed the denovo order reconfirming the earlier stand without providing copies of any more documents to the petitioner and without granting a personal hearing. According to the respondents, when the processor himself has accepted the contents of the documents as correct and accepted their guilty, providing copies of some of the documents for perusal by the petitioner is neither warranted nor will serve any purpose. Hence, it was rightly found that there was no infirmity in the denovo order and the plea of the petitioner was rightly rejected and therefore, the contention of not obeying the order of the appellate authority by the lower authority cannot stand. There is no need for the department to file appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) since he only remanded the matter to the original authority. 6. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and take copies thereof, if required. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner sent a letter dated 31.5.2004 to the 5th respondent, requesting to send the relied upon documents to them at Ahmedabad. However, since there was no provision to send the relied upon documents to the notice as the notice was only permitted to peruse the said documents and take copies thereof, it appears that no documents were sent by the 5th respondent. Thereafter, again the petitioner sent a letter dated 24.6.2004 and 11.9.2004, requesting to send the documents to Ahmedabad. As there was no reply to the show cause notice after a lapse of 18 months, a personal hearing was fixed on 8.12.2005 and thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time providing personal hearing to the petitioner. However, since there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner despite enough opportunities, the 5th respondent decided the issue on the basis of the materials available on record and accordingly, passed ex parte order in original, dated 31.3.2006, demanding ₹ 30,73,604/- apart from imposing penalty and interest. Aggrieved against the said order, dated 31.3.2006, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise (Appeals), as under: 6.2. From the above, it is seen that the entire case is on the documents recovered from the job worker of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is right in asking for the documents for perusal before giving any reply. It cannot be said that there is laxity on the part of the appellant. The appellant has repeatedly asked for the relied upon documents from the Lower Authority vide his letters dated 31.5.2004, 24.06.2004, 11.09.2004, 14.02.2005, 01.12.2005, 19.01.2006 and 23.2.2006. None of the letters seems to have been replied by the Lower Authority. If the letters had been replied properly and if the appellant has not availed the opportunity, it would have been proper to hold that the appellant has not availed the opportunity and hence there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Contrary to the above facts, the appellant has not been provided with the relied upon documents and decided the case, which is not sustainable in law. .. 6.5. Abiding by the above decisions, I hold that the impugned order is not sustainable in law inasmuch as the same has been passed by the Lower Authority without providing them the relied upon docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g. The documents required for perusal by the appellants are those of the processor M/s. Erode Rana Textile Processors Ltd., Erode. When the processor himself has accepted the contents of the documents as correct and has accepted their guilty subjecting those documents for perusal by the appellants is neither warranted nor will serve any purpose. .. . Having convinced with the findings of the 5th respondent, the Appellate authority has nothing but dissected from its own earlier order, dated 01.8.2006 wherein, as already stated, having discussed the issue in detail by following the rulings of the Apex Court in the matter of audi alteram partem, directed the lower authority to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to peruse the relied upon documents/personal hearing. It shows that the authorities were fully satisfied than the aggrieved party. It is pertinent to note that there was no change in the circumstances between the first round of orders of the authorities and the present impugned orders and it appears that what are all left to be considered, were considered and passed the present orders when the petitioner approached on second time. Therefore, it is not fair and appropriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
