TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment, Jaipur on 19th and 20th January, 1998 and on 19th and 20th February, 1998. Certain documents, and books of accounts were seized. 2.By the Finance Act, 1977 Section 3A was introduced in the Central Excise Act, 1944 empowering the Central Govt. to charge excise duty on the basis of capacity of production in respect of certain goods. Rules were made by the Central Govt. for determination of annual capacity of production of the specified goods notified under sub-section (1) of Section 3A of the Act. The goods were specified by another notification under sub-section (a) of Section 3A of the Act. The Central Govt. also specified the rate of excise duty on textile fabrics, falling under certain headings of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, manufactured or produced by an independent processor with the aid of a hot-air stenter vide notification No. 36/98 dated 10-12-1998. The petitioner claiming itself to be an independent processor claimed benefit under the aforesaid notification and claimed that it was chargeable to duty under Section 3A and not under Section 3 of the Act. On 30-12-1998 Additional Commissioner wrote to the petitioner in response to the declar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or suspended and for a declaration that the petitioner company was an independent processor within the meaning of notifications 36/98 and 42/98 both dated 10-12-1998. In the alternative it was also prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to furnish authenticated copies of the documents mentioned in the letter dated 19-6-1999 and on which reliance has been placed in the impugned notices and the respondents may be restrained from proceeding against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned show cause notices dated 15-1-1999 and 31-5-1999 without supplying the copies demanded by the petitioner in the letter dated 19-6-1999. 4.The respondents vehemently opposed the petition on various grounds. On 24-6-1999 a Division Bench of this Court stayed further proceeding in pursuance to impugned notices dated 15-1-1999 and 31-5-1999. It was however directed that the respondents were at liberty to proceed in pursuance to the said notices if they furnish the authenticated copies of the documents mentioned in Annex. 2 of the show cause notice dated 15-1-1999 to the petitioner. The petition was ultimately heard finally with the consent of the parties. 5.At the hearing the petitioner pressed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 99 Annex. 17 to the petition was accompanied by Annex. 2 titled "list of documents relied upon for issuance of the show cause notice to M/s. Suzuki Processors (a unit of Suzuki Textile Ltd.) Bhilwara. M/s. PGO Processors (P) Ltd. Bhilwara and ors. vide C.No. V(55) 15/OFF/96/98 dt….". There were two columns of Annex. 2. Column No. 1 was serial number and column No. 2 was "Particulars of the documents relied upon". It is not the dispute that the documents of which authenticated copies were asked by the petitioner were only those which found place in Annex. 2. There is no document which is not in Annex. 2 of which authenticated copy has been asked for by the petitioner. The relevance of the documents is, therefore, clearly established. 10.The only question therefore which remains to be answered is whether the petitioner can insist on supply of an authenticated copy of a document or an opportunity to inspect the document and if desired obtain a photo copy thereof would serve the ends of justice and meet the requirements of principles of natural justice. 11.In Sahi Ram's case (supra) in paragraph 9, the Court observed that once the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pproved by the CEGAT observing that when the Department gives a show cause notice, proposing to initiate action for alleged violation of law, it is the duty cast upon the department to serve legible copies on which reliance is being made by the department for initiating action. In this case, of course the opportunity to inspect the document and take photocopies was not considered to be a proper substitute for supply of legible copies of the relied upon documents. However, since the documents, though illegible, were supplied along with the show cause notice, it was clear that the department also was initially of the opinion that it was necessary to supply copies of those documents. 13.The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanghi Textile Processors (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1993 (65) E.L.T. 357 (S.C.)]. In that case the documents relied upon were voluminous and the assessee asked for copies of all the documents on which the Collector, Central Excise, proposed to rely. It was suggested by the Department that since the documents were voluminous and spread out, containing of number of registers, files and other reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
