TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant. Shri Y.S. Loni, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : D. N. Panda, Member (J)]. - The assessee came in appeal with delay of 14 days against the order of adjudication dated 24-11-06 passed by the ld. Commissioner, Kolkata-II levying Central Excise duty on several counts with penalty as well as interest. Some of the charges against the Appellant as per the Show Cause Notice were (i) That the Appellant had surreptitiously manufactured certain finished goods and scrap collectively valued at Rs. 4,23,89,739/- and clandestinely cleared the same without following procedure laid down by law as well as without payment of duty amounting to Rs. 67,82,358/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Lath Eighty Two Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Eight) on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds. The records appeared to be incriminating in nature for which seizure was made by the Central Excise Officers under seizure serial nos. 3/SFM/03-04, 5/SFM/03-04 13/SFM/03-04. That gave rise to total clearance of value for the financial year 2002-03 to be Rs. 4,90,26,011/-. (iv) Clandestinely cleared 20,110 Kgs of Cenvatable H.R. Strips valued at Rs. 2,41,320/- involving Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 38,611/- without payment of Central Excise duty and without observing any Central Excise formalities. 1.2 Show Cause Notice was issued on the basis of the result of the investigation by Anti-Evasion squad on 28-5-03. Various documents and papers were recovered in the course of investigation. Stock taking was also done. Scrutin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants also moved Stay application for stay of realization of the demand. 3. Both parties were heard on the point of condonation of delay. The facts and circumstances suggested that the appellant shall be prejudiced if they are thrown at the threshold without condonation of delay in view of huge demand including penal consequences faced by the appellant against whom an ex parte order was passed. The applicant explained that delay was for reasons be yond the control of the appellant. Revenue's argument was fair to give opportunity to the appellant as a course to natural justice. Therefore, the delay in filing of appeal is condoned and the appeal should be admitted for hearing. 4.1 When stay application was taken up for hearing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 3-10-2006. Opportunity of hearing granted were also not reasonable even if there is indication at page 24 of the order of adjudication. Opportunity of hearing is never said to have been granted unless relevant documents remained in custody of the Department, were made available to the appellant to defend. The Department deprived the appellant from appropriate defence. Therefore, the appellant deserves consideration and is entitled to copies of documents proposed to be used against them in the adjudication. In support of his submissions he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 (207) EL.T. 168 (S.C.) = 2007 (5) S.T.R. 3 (S.C.) and Madurai Metal Industri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Denial of natural justice at the stage of adjudication if patent and questioned that cannot be cured at Appellant stage. Therefore, the matter should go back to grass-root for the very reason that dedicated devotion to rule of law is expected of the authorities exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers. The demands and the claims of natural justice cannot be treated with scant regard. 7.2 We appreciate that grievance of violation of natural justice goes to the root of the matter and is incurable at the appellate stage. In the present case, we noticed that the seized documents which were proposed to be used against the Appellants should have been brought to light without being unilaterally used and those should have been confronted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Methodex Systems Limited v. Union of India - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 44 (M.P.). 7.5 Also natural justice being sacrocent object of administration of justice, the appellants deserves consideration following the ratio laid down in: (1) 2004 (6) S.C.C. 311 - Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala; (2) 2004 (6) S.C.C. 325 - Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sungathan v. Girdharilal Yadav; (3)1994 (5) Sc 280 - The Maharashtra State Financial Corpn. v. M/s. Suvama Board Mills, JT; (4) 2004 (11) Sc (Supp.) 428 (para-47) - Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala, JT; (5) A.I.R 1985 SC 1416 - Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
