Full Judgment
2. The learned Counsel, at the outset, has contended that there has been breach of rules of natural justice by the Commissioner as he failed to afford proper opportunity to the appellants by supplying the requisite relied upon documents and non relied upon documents in spite of repeated requests by them. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this short ground only.
3. The learned JDR, on the other hand, has simply reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.
4. We have heard both sides and gone through the facts on record. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of rubber roll and tread rubber. Proceedings were drawn against them on the strength of show cause notice dated 27-9-2000 after taking search of their business premises as well as the premises of their transport companies vide which they were called upon to pay the duty amount of Rs. 12,87,630.50 for having evaded the same by clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods. But the record shows that they had requested the adjudicating authority to supply them the documents to enable them to file the effective reply to the show cause notice as is evident from their letter dated 24-10-2000. But only some documents were supplied to them. Again, the appellants through their letter dated 27-1-2001 and other letters which are at pages 270, 271 & 272 of the file, requested the adjudicating authority to supply them eligible copies of relied upon documents and of the unrelied upon documents which were seized from their premises. From the record we find that this request of the appellants was never accepted and the documents were not made available to them. Even there is no material on the record to suggest that the date fixed for personal hearing i.e. 22-8-2001 was ever actually intimated to the appellants. It has been nowhere mentioned in the impugned order by the adjudicating authority that on which date the letter was sent to the appellants and if any acknowledgement of that letter was received. Therefore, the plea of the appellants that they even did not receive any intimation of personal hearing cannot be brushed aside.
5. We find from the record that no proper opportunity has been afforded to them for preparing their defence and presenting their case before the adjudicating authority. The non supply of the relevant documents has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this short ground alone.
6. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner is set aside and the case is sent back to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision after supplying the requisite relied upon documents as prayed for by the appellants in their letters after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to them.
7. As a result, the appeal of the appellants is allowed by way of remand.