9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in deciding the case of the appellant without production of documents/evidence, which are already seized and in the custody of the respondent authority? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in casting the burden of proof on the appellant where the documents/evidence, which are already seized and in the custody of the respondent authority?" 2. The appellant is a hundred percent EOU engaged in the manufacture of polyester dupatta and scarves. The appellant exported the goods under the cover of six ARE-1s during the period from 13.2.2002 to 17.3.2003. The appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not been returned. It was submitted that a specific contention has been taken before the Tribunal that the appellant had requested the adjudicating authority to provide copies of the seized documents to establish the cancellation of ARE-1s from the record. However, no such documents were furnished to the appellant and therefore, the appellant was not able to establish the same. It was submitted that non-furnishing of the relevant documents which have been seized by the respondents, would amount to breach of the principles of natural justice and hence, the Tribunal ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant after directing the adjudicating authority to furnish the documents to the appellant. It was, accordingly, urged that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that the appellant had approached the Superintendent of Customs for release of the goods which were detained in 2003, nor was the seizure memorandum produced by the appellant. The Tribunal took note of the fact that it had remanded the matter twice by orders dated 23.11.2004 and 20.2.2007 and upon appreciating the evidence on record, found that there was no dispute on facts that the appellant had cleared the goods under cover of ARE-1s without payment of duty and that the same was not recorded in the export register. That, the appellant failed to provide any evidence that the two ARE-1s were cancelled and also found that the plea of seizure of the documents is without any basis. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal, upon apprec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
