TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 342
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner (the then). 2. This Court while admitting the appeal on 30.03.2015, framed following substantial question of law:- "(1) Whether non supply of resumed records which are relied upon in SCN and adjudication order constitute violation of principles of natural justice, when not provided in spite of preliminary objections and request letters? (2) Whether onus of proving classification was on the part of appellant when all the resumed and relied upon documents were not supplied to him in spite of repeated requests?" 3. Learned counsel for appellant has pointed out that the resumption memo prepared on 20.12.2003 and he contended that when reply was filed a specific contention was raised in the reply to the show cause not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll the search was conducted thus it is clearly a case of misstatement suppression and fraud and in such cases time period of issuance of show cause notice is five years instead of one year." 5. The same contention was also raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) and also before the CESTAT. But nothing has come on record to establish that the documents which was relied upon and referred in order were supplied to the assessee. 6. However, Mr. Ranka has stated that the documents which have referred in the resumption memo are only receipt, register and the bill books and no other important documents are seized and he has relied upon statement of assessee recorded, which is as under:- and contended that in view of the observations wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er filing five different replied. The contention raised is afterthought with a view to delay proceedings. Mr. Ranka has also shown that the Tribunal has also not considered the same. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. It is well settled principle of law that the person who is to take an action is required to supply basic documents, which sought to be relied upon. The documents though referred in the show cause notice were not given to the assessee by the Tribunal. 11. The Tribunal has seriously committed an error in dealing with issue in view of the decision of this Court in case of P.G.O. Processors Private Limited vs. Commissioner, C.Ex., 2000 (122) E.L.T. 26 (Raj.) the documents which are required to be given ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r is not liable to be revoked and/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 19.06.1999 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 15.01.1999 and 31.05.1999 without supplying the copies demanded by the petitioner in the letter dated 19.06.1999. 10. The only question therefore which remains to be answered is whether....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n documents were supplied along with the show cause notice. But the copies were illegible and on a complaint made, the assessee was told to inspect the record and take photostat copies. This was not approved 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 ....