Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. vs Tuni Textile Mills Ltd.

D.A. Mehta, J.—The appellant-revenue has proposed the following two questions:

(a) Whether despite giving ample opportunities to the respondents by granting personal hearings on 18-1-2001, 23-1-2001, 10-9-2001, 17-9-2001, 29-10-2001 and 30-10-2001 which they chose not to attend and despite giving them opportunity to inspect the relied upon documents, they did not carry out the inspection and kept on insisting to supply them copies thereof, breach of the principles of natural justice can be hurled against the department?

(b) Whether in case of seizure of excisable goods followed by detection of evasion over the period of time, Show Cause Notices can be issued separately. First for seized goods within six months prescribed u/s 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 made applicable to Central Excise Cases by virtue of Section 12 of Central Excise Act failing which seized goods are liable to be released unconditionally and second for the amount of duty evaded by resorting to fraud and suppression of fact which required detailed investigation and scrutiny of past records, for which extended period of five years has been prescribed under proviso to Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act 1944?

Heard Ms. Avani S. Mehta, learned Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel. It is submitted that an adequate opportunity of hearing was granted to the respondent-assessee and that the assessee was also permitted inspection of various documents but the assessee did not choose to avail of the said opportunity. Hence, impugned order of Tribunal dated 21-7-2004 gives rise to the proposed questions.

As can be seen from the order of Tribunal it is not based on the fact as to whether an opportunity of hearing was granted or not, nor is it based on the fact whether inspection of certain documents was offered to the assessee. The Tribunal has categorically found that various statements of concerned persons including that of Managing Director were recorded, and though the same were stated to have been enclosed with the impugned show cause notice the statements were not made available to the assessee along with the notice. That despite repeated requests made by the assessee to provide copies of all the documents relied upon by the revenue, including statements said to have been enclosed with the notice but not enclosed, the revenue authority failed to provide such copies. The Tribunal has taken cognizance of the fact that the assessee had written 11 such letters demanding the documents, but record reveals that the said documents were not made available to the assessee. It is in backdrop of such facts that the Tribunal had found that at no stage of the proceedings the assessee was given enough opportunity to meet with the show cause notice and to the contrary, the adjudicating authority has relied upon the said documents to pass the order adverse to the assessee. It is in this context that the Tribunal has set aside the adjudication order on the ground of denial of natural justice.

In light of the aforesaid findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal it is apparent that there is no infirmity in the impugned order of Tribunal holding that there was violation of principles of natural justice. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed in absence of any substantial question of law.