Rajeshwar Prasad R Dubey And Ors. vs C.C.E. And S.T.-Daman

These Appeals are directed against Order-In-Original dated 18.06.2018 whereby Cenvat Credit of Rs.3,07,50,774/- was disallowed against M/s.

Metal Link Alloys Ltd. on the ground that M/s. Metal Link Alloys Ltd. have taken the Cenvat Credit on the bills of entry of imported goods without

receipt of the goods. In connection with this alleged fraudulent Cenvat credit the present appellants were imposed penalties under Rule 26 of Central

Excise Rules, 2002.

Shri. J.C. Patel Learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant Shri. Rajeshwar Prasad R Dubey, Shri. Vinay Sejpal Learned Counsel

appeared on behalf of the appellants, Shr. Bhavarlal M Jain & Shri. Ajay Kumar Gupta. Both the Counsels have made detail submissions on merit and

facts of the case. Apart from which they have vehemently submitted that there is a violation of principles of natural justice in passing the adjudicating

authority against the appellant as the order was passed ex-parte and giving cross-examination of witnesses.

On behalf of the Revenue Shri. Sanjiv Kinker, Learned Superintendent (AR) also made detailed submissions and also reiterates the finding of the

impugned order.

We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that there is a force in the argument of the

counsels for all the appellants on the ground of principles of natural justice. We find that all the appellants could not re-present during the personal

hearing. We also found that all the relied upon and none relied upon documents were not supplied to the appellants. On behalf of Shri. Rajeshwar

Prasad R Dube, Shri. J.C.Patel regarding the hearing before the adjudicating authority submits that on dates of hearing there were some difficulties

with the appellant and he has sought for adjournment as due to some special occasion and his illness he could not attend the personal hearing,

however, the adjudicating authority without giving further opportunity passed the ex-parte order. It is also observed that the relied upon documents

have not been provided to the appellant nor records seized from the appellant have been returned to them despite the request made by the appellant by

letter dated 24.01.2011, thereafter, almost after 8 years impugned order was issued. As regard the appellant Shri. Bhavarlal M Jain and Rajeshwar

Prasad R Dubey their Company vide letter dated 26.11.2009 and 11.01.2010 addressed to DGCI Mumbai with copy endorsed to adjudicating authority

requested to furnish them the copies of all relied upon documents including some missing pages of show cause notices . They have also mentioned in

the letter that on scrutiny of the relied upon document, they would furnish the list of witnesses which they wish to cross-examine and also request for

grant extension of time for filing reply. The appellant also vide letter dated 21.10.2010 addressed to adjudicating authority informed that they were

served with bare copy of show cause notice and none of the relied upon documents were supplied as detailed in annexure-B to show cause notice.

They have further informed vide letter dated 07.10.2010 for supplying rest of the documents, however, the documents were not provided.

Subsequently, without supplying the relied upon documents the impugned order was passed.

In view of the above facts, we are of the view that the adjudicating authority has grossly violated the principles of natural justice by not providing

the documents as requested by the appellant and also not giving the effective hearing to the appellants, therefore, without going into the other details of

the adjudication order, we are of the view that the principles of natural justice which is the foremost requirement for any adjudication, needs to be

followed.

Accordingly, we remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to comply with the principles of natural justice and to pass a de novo adjudication

order after providing all the documents and sufficient opportunity of personal hearing.

Appeals are disposed of by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.

(Pronounced in the open court on 23.11.2021)