9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, Chennai. CMA(MD)No.650 of 2018 is filed against the Final Order No.40084/2016, dated 10.01.2016 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. 2.As the scope of these appeals is on a limited purpose, we are not adverting to various facts and circumstances narrated in the grounds of appeal, except to state certain relevant facts, as projected by the appellants, which are necessary for disposal of these appeals. 3.The appellant Company is engaged in the manufacture of copper products. Its finished goods are exported. The appellants had been issued advance licenses for the import of copper concentrate, by the Director General, Foreign Trade. In the year 2010, the Central Excise Authorities initiated investigation aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.434 of 2015 was withdrawn as having become infructuous. Another writ petition in W.P(MD)No.626 of 2015 was filed challenging the said show cause notice dated 13.01.2015. The Writ Court posted the writ petition along with a connected W.A(MD)No.705 of 2011 pending before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein a challenge was made on the very jurisdiction of the Central Excise Officers to conduct the investigation on the alleged customs offence. By common order dated 01.08.2018, both W.P(MD)No.626 of 2015 and W.A(MD)No.705 of 2011 were disposed of against the appellants. Special Leave Petition in SLP Nos.25142-25143/2016 was filed before the Apex Court. On 05.09.2016, the Apex Court issued notice on the SPL. Thereafter, on 21.04.2017, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in- Original dated 29.09.2017 to the extent it has rejected the request made by the appellant for supply of the entire chain of correspondence exchanged between the Central Excise and Customs authorities leading to the issuance of the Show Cause Notice No.12/2015 dated 13.01.2015, especially response of the Central Excise authorities to the letters dated 29.04.2011, 30.09.2014 and 09.01.2015, issued by the Customs authorities? (iii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent No.2 was justified in overlooking and ignoring the specific request made by the appellant seeking crossexamination of the Department Officers who conducted the entire investigation and recorded the statements of the appellant Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnishing those response letters from the Excise Department, more particularly, when those documents are not relied upon documents in the show cause notice. He further contended that the appellants have already made an application under the Right to Information Act for furnishing those documents and therefore, it is for them to work out their remedy through such application. 6.Heard both sides. 7.It is seen that the appellants are issued with the show cause notice by the first respondent. Their challenge against the said show cause notice was not successful before this Court. However, they approached the Apex Court and filed Special Leave Petition challenging the order passed by this Court in refusing to interfere with the show cause notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Department. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration in these appeals is as to whether the rejection of the request made by the appellants for furnishing certain documents needs to be interfered with in these appeals. 10.It is not in dispute that the appellants already filed an RTI application and obtained copies of the letters, dated 13.09.2014 and 09.01.2015 sent by the Customs Department to the Central Exercise Department. They want reply filed by the Central Excise Department in response those two letters and also another letter, dated 29.04.2011 issued by the Customs Department. When it is the specific case of the first respondent that those documents sought by the appellants are not relied upon documents in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RTI application is either prohibited or exempted document as contemplated under Section 8 of the said Act, the same need not be furnished. That is not the case in domestic enquiry/adjudicatory proceedings, where, when a person seeks certain documents for participating in the enquiry and when the department contends that such documents is not relied upon document in the show cause notice, it is not as a matter of right that such person can compel the department to part with such document. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the principles of natural justice is violated by not furnishing those documents, when admittedly they are not relied upon documents by the revenue. 12.It seems that the appellants seek to collect some documents in posses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
