2012 (11) TMI 146 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Remands Case for Lack of Documents, Grants Opportunity for Hearing

M/s. Pure Trading Co. Ltd. & Others Versus CCE, Salem

M/s. Pure Trading Co. Ltd. & Others Versus CCE, Salem - TMI Issues:1. Non-supply of relied upon documents in response to show cause notice leading to inadequate defense by the appellants.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, involved a case where the appellants, represented by an advocate, raised concerns regarding the non-supply of crucial relied upon documents listed in the Annexure to the Show Cause Notice. The advocate argued that due to the absence of these documents, the appellants could not adequately defend themselves, resulting in a sketchy reply submitted in response to the notice. The appellants had made a pre-deposit of Rs. Five lakhs, indicating their willingness to not seek a refund if granted the opportunity for a remand to obtain the necessary documents and present a more comprehensive defense.The Learned DR opposed the plea for remand, stating that the appellants had not specifically requested the relied upon documents and that the show cause notice indicated the enclosure of such documents. However, upon examining the case records, the Tribunal noted that while the notice mentioned the enclosure of relied upon documents, it also stated that the noticee could obtain copies at the adjudication section of the Commissioner's office, raising doubts about the actual supply of all voluminous relied upon documents along with the notice.After considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contention that the absence of relied upon documents and quantification of the demand hindered their ability to defend the case effectively. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded all five appeals to the original authority. The direction was given for the necessary relied upon documents, as listed by the appellants, to be provided to the appellant's representative within three weeks. The appellants were then instructed to submit their reply within three weeks thereafter, with a mandate for expeditious completion of adjudication proceedings, considering the cases pertained to the years 1998-2000. The appellants were assured an adequate opportunity for a hearing before fresh orders were passed.In conclusion, all five appeals were allowed by way of remand, ensuring that the appellants had access to the relied upon documents essential for a fair and comprehensive defense in the adjudication proceedings.