JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This petition, though styled as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is in effect a petition under Article 227 challenging the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai made on 10-5-2005 (Annexure-H).
(2.)Heard Mr. Mihir H. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. S.N. Thakkar on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. Joshi has made various submissions as to validity of the Order-in-Original dated 31-1-2005 made by Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara-I. According to him not granting the documents which were requested for, not granting opportunity of cross- examination and not granting opportunity of hearing amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. In this connection he has placed reliance on following decisions of the Apex Court :
( Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. V/s. Union of India,1978 ELT 172. (ii Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. V/s. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut,2000 122 ELT 641. (ii Lakshman Exports Ltd. vCollector of Central Excise, 2002 143 ELT 21. (iv Arya Abhushan Bhandar vUnion of India, 2002 143 ELT 25. Alternatively, it was pleaded that the time for making deposit of the amount directed by the Tribunal be suitably extended. It was also submitted that the aspect of financial hardship has not been taken into consideration.
(3.)As is apparent, the scope of present proceedings is limited to appreciating whether the impugned order of Tribunal suffers from any jurisdictional error or can be termed perverse in any manner. The Tribunal while passing the impugned order has recorded in Paragraph No. 2 the case made out on behalf of the petitioner before it and in Paragraph No. 3 the case of the revenue. In Paragraph No. 4 the following findings have been recorded :
4. We have gone through the records and on careful consideration of the submissions made before us, we find that the department has furnished most of the documents. It is, however, true that some invoices which are relied upon were not supplied to the applicants. We find that the applicants could have furnished a reply on the basis of the documents given and contested the demand to the extent that based on the documents which were not supplied. At this stage to say that the applicants were prevented from furnishing any reply is not acceptable. Having regard to these circumstances, we direct the applicant unit to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs towards duty within 12 weeks. Upon such deposit further pre-deposit of balance duty and penalties is waived .
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.