ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. Appeals taken up for disposal with consent, after waiving deposit.
2. Union Quality Plastic Ltd. is a manufacturer of high density polyethelene woven fabrics and sacks therefrom the other textile articles. A verification of the stock of finished goods in the factory, by the officers on 1.8.1997 showed that there was a shortage of the stock of different kind of fabrics and sacks manufactured as against the stock should have been manufactured according to the RG1 register. The officers thereupon seized various documents specified in the panchnama. After investigations were completed, a notice was issued to the manufacturer and to J.A. Kathawala, the managing director, Maganbhai P. Kapadia, manager and Khojem Tayyab Ali Rangwala, the excise clerk. The notice demanded duty on the finished goods and proposed penalty on the manufacturer as well as the other three. Interest was also demanded.
3. The notice was received by the appellants in February, 1999. No reply has so far been filed by any of these persons to the notices. The Commissioner, by seven letters, communicated various dates of hearing spanning over 10 months from March, 1999 to January, 2000. Nobody appeared for hearing on any of these dates. The Commissioner thereafter passed orders ex parte, demanding duty proposed in the notice, and imposing penalties on the company and the other three appellants. Hence these appeals.
4. Arguing on the stay applications, counsel for the appellants emphasizes that the company had been declared sick industrial undertaking by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, therefore come in accordance wit the settled judicial position. He also raised a contention that copies of the documents that have been relied upon in the show cause notice had not been supplied. It is on this ground that we have decided to take up the appeals for disposal.
5. On the facts of the case we are satisfied that except with regard to the supply of documents, there had been ample opportunity granted to the appellants which they have chosen not to avail of, for reasons which the counsel for the appellants cannot explain. The utter failure on part of any person to file the reply, and the refusal to attend the hearings, does not disclose any serious attempt to contest the allegations in the notice. Had the relevant documents been made available to the appellants, we would say that in this case there has been no failure to abide by the principles of natural justice.
6. The panchnama made on the date of the visit shows that RG1 registers, various files containing invoices, form IV and other documents were seized. The show cause notice does not enclose copies of these documents. The last paragraph of the notice says “The documents relied upon for the purpose of this notice are listed in the attached Annexure-B and copies thereof wherever not earlier supplied or enclosed would be made available for inspection on demand being made in writing.” The Counsel for the appellants says that no documents was supplied prior to the issue of the notice and nothing was enclosed it. Therefore none of the documents on which reliance has been placed have been given. The letter dated 21.9.1999 of Mr. K.I. Vyas, advocate of all four appellants, to the Commissioner (received by his office on 23.8.1999) asked for permission to inspect the seized documents and to take copies wherever required. There was no reply to this letter. The Commissioner does not refer to this letter in his order. The contention of the counsel for the appellants that the documents were seized from them and they were handicapped in filing the reply has to be accepted. On this ground, therefore, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
7. Counsel for the appellants undertakes that he will not need longer than 15 days to inspect the documents and a months thereafter to file replies within two weeks of notice of hearing. Accordingly, our order is as follows. Counsel for the appellant or his nominee will be given a period of three weeks from the receipt of this order to inspect the documents and take copies; on a month therefrom the expiry of three weeks to file replies. The Commissioner shall fix a date of hearing for which a clear 15 days notice should be given to the appellant. He shall, after hearing the appellants, proceed to decide the matter. Mr. K.I. Vyas who appeared before us with Mr. Mehta, undertakes that he will not seeks adjournment except for the gravest of causes such as illness. We would like the Commissioner to note this assurance and act upon it if necessary, whoever represents the appellants.