Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Engineering Technico (India) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Engineering Technico (India) vs Commissioner of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Aug 08, 2006
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/43349

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Engineering Technico (India)

Respondent

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In
(2006)(108)ECC404

Excerpt

2. the grievance of the appellant is that the adjudicating proceedings took place ex parte, inasmuch as the copies of the relied upon documents were not given to the appellant and in the absence of those documents, the appellant was not in a position to understand revenue's case and the evidence relied upon and offer any meaningful defence. the record also shows that even unrelied upon documents seized from the appellant remain unreturned.3. a perusal of the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) makes it clear that merits of the case have not been dealt with at all.4. it is well settled that a noticee must be supplied copies of materials relied upon against it. this has not taken place in this case. further, the revenue authorities have no use for and right to the unrelied upon documents. therefore, the continued retention of those documents is wholly unjustified. the assesee may also have use of those documents in preparing its defence. clearly, the proceedings in the present case have not taken place in the manner expected in a fair system. as already observed, the commissioner has also not gone into the merits of the dispute.5. in the result, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the original authority for a fresh adjudication after supplying the appellant copies of the relied upon documents. the appellant shall also be returned unrelied upon documents seized from it. needless to say, the appellant shall also be given reasonable opportunity to file a consolidated reply and to be heard before passing the order.

Full Judgment

2. The grievance of the appellant is that the adjudicating proceedings took place ex parte, inasmuch as the copies of the relied upon documents were not given to the appellant and in the absence of those documents, the appellant was not in a position to understand Revenue's case and the evidence relied upon and offer any meaningful defence. The record also shows that even unrelied upon documents seized from the appellant remain unreturned.

3. A perusal of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) makes it clear that merits of the case have not been dealt with at all.

4. It is well settled that a noticee must be supplied copies of materials relied upon against it. This has not taken place in this case. Further, the Revenue authorities have no use for and right to the unrelied upon documents. Therefore, the continued retention of those documents is wholly unjustified. The assesee may also have use of those documents in preparing its defence. Clearly, the proceedings in the present case have not taken place in the manner expected in a fair system. As already observed, the Commissioner has also not gone into the merits of the dispute.

5. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the original authority for a fresh adjudication after supplying the appellant copies of the relied upon documents. The appellant shall also be returned unrelied upon documents seized from it. Needless to say, the appellant shall also be given reasonable opportunity to file a consolidated reply and to be heard before passing the order.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial