Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Bengal Hammer Industries (P) Ltd. vs Cce on 24 November, 2004
ORDER M.P. Bohra, Member (J)
1. Heard Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant for the Appellant and Shri K. Sanyal, JDR for the Respondent.
2. Mr. Chattopadhyay submits that in the show cause notice the Department has relied upon the initial invoices issued by the manufacturers and the report of Range Superintendent which was not supplied to the Appellant along with the show cause notice. Therefore he submits that the case may be remanded back towards adjudicating authority for disposal in accordance with the law.
3. Ld. Consultant relies on the case reported in 1978 ELT (J 320) Aluminium Corporation of India v. Union of India, 2002 (143) ELT 179 Avadh Transport Service v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, Balakishan Dass & Sons v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2001 (129) ELT 706. Therefore he submits that the impugned order may be set aside and appeal may be remanded.
4. Ld. JDR submits that the appellant could have asked for the documents before the Adjudicating Authority and in the absence of such now they cannot ask for the documents.
5. From perusal of show cause notice it is clear that the Department has relied upon the initial invoices issued by he manufacturers and on the report of Range Superintendent. These documents were not supplied to the Appellant along with the show cause notice. The Mumbai Bench in the case of Avadh Transport Service v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2002 (143) ELT 179 has held "Adjudication-Show cause notice-Natural justice-supply of documents-Where show cause notice puts burden on assessee, to give him clear picture and chance to rebut allegations, he must be given all documents, relied upon by department as well as those not relied upon - Where documents are voluminous, sufficient opportunity must be given to file reply-Matter remanded for de novo adjudication-Section 11A and 33 of Central Excise Act, 1944. (Para 14)".
6. In present case also the documents have not been supplied to the Appellant. In view of the above discussion, I set aside the impugned order and allow the Appeal and proceedings are remanded back to appropriate adjudication for de novo.