TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order passed by the learned Single Bench. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the show cause notice there was no proposal for levy of penalty under Section 11AC. This is an incorrect submission because relevant rules find place in the show cause notice as well as the order-in-original, probably non- mentioning of Section 11AC can in no manner vitiate the proceedings. In fact, the appellant appears to have not raised this contention in the year 2006 when proceedings were initiated against them and the present attempt is a belated attempt which cannot be a ground to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal dismissed. - W.A.No.1136 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.13894 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 1-2-2021 - THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM And THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA For the Appellant : M/s.P.Jayalakshmi For the Respondents : M/s.Hema Muralikrishnan Senior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT This appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 05.08.2020 in W.P.No.15517 of 2012. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 20.04.2012 in a revision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by order dated 22.09.2008. The revision application filed before the Central Government appears to have been heard subsequently and by order dated 08.01.2010, the same was dismissed confirming the order dated 26.03.2007. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem challenging the order-in-original dated 22.09.2008. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 28.05.2010. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred revision before the Central Government under Section 35EE of the Act which was dismissed by order dated 30.04.2012. This order was put to challenge in the writ petition which was dismissed by the impugned order. 5.The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the original authority while confirming the demand by order dated 22.09.2008 failed to comply with the directions issued by the First Appellate Authority in the order dated 26.03.2007 in as much as the relied upon documents which were directed to be given were not furnished and therefore, the Central Government ought to have interfered with the orders of the lower authorities and set aside the demand. It is further submitted that since the original a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TP has not challenged the proceedings and action initiated against them has attained finality. The appellant pursued the matter by way of an appeal mainly contending that there has been violation of principles of natural justice and relied upon documents were not furnished. The First Appellate Authority agreed with the said contention and remanded the matter. 8.On remand, the adjudicating authority took up the matter for consideration. From a reading of the order dated 22.09.2008, it is evidently clear that the appellant was dragging on the matter and every attempt was being made by the appellant to delay the denovo adjudication. Probably this was due to the fact that the appellant had filed a revision application before the Central Government challenging the order of the First Appellate Authority dated 26.03.2007 remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. Ultimately the original authority on denovo adjudication confirmed the proposal in the show cause notice. In the order dated 22.09.2008, the adjudicating authority has rendered a finding that the documents which were placed by the revenue are the documents which show that M/s.ERTP indulged in clandestine production and remov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere not produced. This contention was rejected with the following observations: 8..............The applicant's sole contention is that they had not provided relied upon documents but on perusal of records it is observed that the lower adjudicating authority concluded that when there is no dispute on the actual quantity of processed fabrics produced by the processor and when the whole scheme of evasion through illicit and nefarious design had been accepted as uncontested by the processor M/s.ERTP there is no necessity to provide the copies of document when the applicant had already given their admission in respect of their transaction to the unresiled statement given during the investigation. Commissioner (Appeals) has already considered the contention of the applicants and passed a reasoned order. Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded in his findings that applicant's representative had already inspected the documents and further they have failed to substantiate the relevance of said document to their defence. In view of this position, Government observes that relevant documents are inspected by the representative of applicant and therefore no principles of natural j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to send the copies of all the documents through a reply letter dated 03.01.2004, which was received by the department on 06.01.2004. Even this reply was not made within the 15 days period stipulated in the show cause notice. Subsequently, during the course of personal hearing, another opportunity was extended to the petitioner to peruse the document and take copies thereof. The petitioner's representative has perused the documents relied upon by the department on 01.08.2006 and 02.08.2006 and had chosen to take copies of some of the documents. The petitioner thereafter had sent a letter dated 11.08.2006, requesting for further documents. This aspect is also not disputed by the petitioner and has been admitted in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. 15.Thus, it is seen that a reasonable opportunity was indeed extended to the petitioner to peruse and take copies of the documents relied upon by the department, which the petitioner did not avail of. Therefore, the substance of the petitioner's submission that the documents relied upon by the department was not furnished to them, is unacceptable. 11.Considering the factual finding which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
