Full Judgment
2. Sh. Venkataraman submits that though Revenue granted the appellants inspection of documents for 43 days; the records being voluminous, they could not complete the inspection of documents relied on by Revenue in support of the show-cause notice and for this reason they could not file reply to the show cause notice. Further the appellants had not waived personal hearing. As, in the aforesaid circumstances, they could not file reply to the show cause notice; it was not possible for the appellants to say that they wanted personal hearing. But failure to do so does not mean that the appellants had waived personal hearing.
3. Sh. Venkataraman stated that in 43 days' of inspection, 2 hours devoted every day for this purpose; of these 2 hours, nearly an hour was spent in arranging and locating the records. The effective inspection every day was only for nearly an hour, and number of documents to be inspected nearly 2000. He also stated that initially there was a proposal to supply to the appellants photostat copies of the documents but this was given up by Revenue for some technical difficulties even though the appellants themselves, Venkataraman stated could not inspect the documents in full or get copies of the same leading to their non-filing of reply to show-cause-notice and failure of compliance with principle of natural justice. He submitted that the case called for remand for de novo consideration after full compliance with principles of natural justice.
4. Sh. Venkataraman also stated that the appellants offer to pay photostat copying charges of documents of which they require such copies. It is only after they receive these copies that they will be able to file reply to show cause notice and for the purpose would require 2 months time from the date copies are received by the appellants. Thereafter, they would like the opportunity of hearing berfore the final order by adjudicating officer is passed in the case.
Mrs. Chander stated that the appellants had been resorting to dilatory tactics and in spite of grant of sufficient time, had not utilised the time properly in taking notes of documents which were made available to them by the Revenue. She stated that no case for remand was made out.
5. We have given our most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the matter. Though the appellants were granted time on quite a number of days, there is no challenge to the fact that the appellants could not complete the inspection of the documents which was necessary for them to put up their defence properly and effectively. Besides, the appellants had not waived personal hearing. There has, thus, been no proper compliance with principles of natural justice in this case. This therefore necessitates a remand of the matter to the adjudicating authority.
6. We therefore direct that after this order is received by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore, he shall fix a date and issue notice of the same to the appellants. On this date or within next 2-3 days the appellants shall furnish a list to the Collector of Central Excise of all the documents of which the appellants want photostat copies. The appellants shall deposit with Revenue the requisite charges for such photostat copying as estimated by Revenue. This should be done within the next 3 days, After this is done, within next fortnight, the Collector of Central Excise shall furnish or cause to be furnished photostat copies of documents as aforesaid to the appellants. Two months' time for filing reply to the show cause notice shall be granted by the Collector of Central Excise to the appellants from the date of receipt of the documents. It will be open to the Collector of Central Excise to extend this time reasonably, should it become necessary.
After reply to the show cause notice is filed, the Collector of Central Excise shall as soon as practicable fix a date of hearing and give notice of the same to the appellants and then pass orders in accordance with law.
7. It has been made clear to Sh. Venkataraman that if appellants failed to cooperate with Revenue in adhering to the time chart set out above and comply with the requirement of this order, it will be open to the Collector of Central Excise to pass fresh orders in accordance with law if for non-cooperation of the appellants, it becomes in-practicable for Collector of Central Excise to comply with this order. In resorting, however, to this part of the order the Collector shall record his reasons for doing so.
8. The impugned order is set aside and remanded for disposal in accordance with law and in the light of observations directions set out above.
9. Bank Guarantee given by the Appellants shall be discharged by the amount of cash deposited by them with Revenue shall remain in deposit till adjudication orders in terms of this order are passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore. Cross objection is in the nature of comments on grounds of appeal. No orders on the same are necessary it is filed. The appeal is thus allowed by remand.