TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (3) TMI 394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and some other items having its manufacturing units at Ratlam. The appellants were availing the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended and Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93 and Notification No. 16/96-C.E., dated 1-4-1997 during the relevant period. There was dispute as to whether the product in the nature of stoneware were salt glazed or slip glazed and the same was answered by the adjudicating authority in favour of the Department and against the assessee. Being dissatisfied, the appellants had carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by its Order No. 130/36/06-Ex., dated 9-12-2005 delivered in Appeal Nos. E/2299 to 2304/03 had set aside the order of the Commissioner in that rega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner to comply with the basic principles of natural justice. 5. Since the contention on behalf of the appellants are that the Tribunal by the said remand order had specifically directed the Commissioner to take into consideration all the contemporary records about manufacture of raw materials used by the appellants and the technology and the machinery available with the appellant and in that regard to examine the dispute from all relevant aspects and record, in order to enable the appellants to assist that adjudicating authority to comply with the said order, according to the appellants they had applied for inspection of the documents which were seized by the Revenue authorities in the course of the investigation, however, the same was unj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the authority to allow the manufacturer to inspect such documents and to place them on record in the matter. Indeed the letter dated 28-9-2006 discloses total non-application of mind by the concerned authority while rejecting the request for inspection. 8. Merely because the assessee had filed his reply to the show cause notice, it could not have been said that he was not entitled to inspect the documents which are in custody of the Department pursuant to the seizure thereof. It is not the case that the documents were of some secret nature or that the inspection thereof would have prejudiced the public interest. Mere filing of the reply to the show cause notice can never be justification for rejection of request for inspection of the do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally salt glazed pipes with exemption from duty vide Notification No. 37/97-C.E.. In this connection, I have gone through the said order of the tribunal and observed that the ratio of the same cannot be applied to the present case, as the facts of the present case are distinguishable from that case. In the case of M/s. Perfect Stoneware Pipes Jabalpur, the samples tested by the Chemical Examiner, Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi was found to be salt glazed. However, in the instant case of the noticee, the samples were reported to be slip glazed stoneware pipes. Further, the locations of both the units are different as one is situated at Jabalpur while other is at Ratlam. Therefore, the use of raw material, machinery etc may dif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lable to them. Therefore, the duty not paid on the slip Glazed stoneware pipes is, therefore, correctly recoverable from the Noticee No. 3 M/s. Perfect Sanitary Wares, Ratlam, in terms of proviso to section 11A(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944". 11. Perusal of the above paras discloses that on the one hand the Commissioner has blamed the appellants for failure to produce the documentary evidence and at the same time the same authority had refused inspection of the documents which were seized by the Department from the appellants. This clearly discloses on the one hand non application of mind to the matter in issue, and on the other hand denial of the principles of natural justice to the party. 12. As already observed above, the directi....