TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (12) TMI 356
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emsp;These appeals are against an order passed by the Commissioner in adjudication of a Show-Cause Notice No. 28/98 dated 4-4-1998. M/s. Perfect Packaging Company is challenging denial of Modvat credit of over Rs. 36 lakhs and also equal amount of penalty. Shri A. Ramadoss, Managing Director of another company and Proprietor of M/s. Perfect Packaging Company is challenging demand of duty of over Rs. 9 lakhs. Shri Baradeeshwaran is also challenging identical demand. M/s. Boss Poly Works is challenging denial of MODVAT credit of over Rs. 32 lakhs and equal amount of penalty. M/s. Modern Polypacks are challenging similar denial of Modvat credit of over Rs. 4 lakhs and equal amount of penalty. M/s. Bharat Polypacks are challenging demand of dut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shed to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the respondent and reiterated his contentions. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the first respondent to furnish them with the adjudication order. The petitioner alleges that the first respondent orally informed him that they had decided to drop the proceedings. There is a lull for six years and on 6-4-2006, the petitioner was informed that there would be a personal hearing on 20-4-2006. Immediately the petitioner made a request for copy of some documents which documents he does nor possess because they have been misplaced and untraceable. The petitioner apprehends that if the respondents proceed in the matter without furnishing him with the copy of the documents, there would be vio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp;The lapse of six years obviously has given rise to some difficulty. In that both the parties claim that they do no have all the documents. On 10-6-1998, the petitioner has taken photocopies of the relied upon documents and given acknowledgement for that, but it is now submitted that those documents are not available. The counsel for the petitioner also addressed a letter to the Department on 13-5-2006, wherein they have specifically averred that when the case was earlier heard on 11-1-2000, during the hearing, it was brought to the notice of the Commissioner that the issue regarding initiation of proceedings through a notice was decided in a file and later on the said issue was closed and the reference to those files are given below: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive objections with regard to the subject-matter of the notice. In other words, the grievance is that natural justice was denied to the appellants by the adjudicating authority. Learned Counsel has reiterated this grievance before us. On the other hand, it is the submission of learned SDR that the relevant records were not traceable in spite of the best efforts of the Departmental officers concerned. According to him, where the records were not available, the appellants can have no grievance that anything was done by the Commissioner in breach of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court. In this connection, the DR has referred to para 8.1 of the impugned order, which is reproduced below : - "The observations of the Hon'ble High Court in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r for perusal. Apparently, the files were not available and hence could not be shown to the writ petitioner for perusal. The Hon'ble High Court's order contains a further observation to the effect that the party could raise all objections with regard to the subject-matter of the notice before the authority concerned and, thereafter, the said authority shall pass orders in accordance with law. It appears from the records before us that the entire case framed against the appellants by the department is founded mainly on the three files specified in para 8 of the Hon'ble High Court's order. Factual materials contained in those files constitute part of the subject-matter of the show-cause notice. Where files were not shown to the parties or cop....