Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Saraswati Rubber Works Pvt. … on 17 March, 2009

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                           CHANDIGARH.

                        C.E.A. No. 69 of 2008

                   Date of Decision: March 17, 2009

Commissioner of Central Excise

                                                        ...Appellant

                                Versus

M/s Saraswati Rubber Works Pvt. Ltd. and others

                                                      ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR

              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA

Present:      Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Senior Standing Counsel
              (Indirect Taxes) for the appellant.

              Mr. O.P. Goel, Senior Advocate, with
              Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate,
              for the respondents.

1.    Whether Reporters of local papers may be
      allowed to see the judgment?
2.    To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in
      the Digest?


M.M. KUMAR, J.

The revenue has approached this Court under Section

35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, ‘the Act’),

challenging order dated 3.8.2006, passed by the Customs, Excise and

Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, ‘the

Tribunal’).

2. The Tribunal has proceeded on the findings that

adjudicating proceedings have been concluded without releasing the

seized (un-relied) documents and that in the absence of those

documents the dealer-assessees were not in a position to file proper
CEA No. 69 of 2008 2

reply to the notice or participate in the proceedings meaningfully.

The other premise on which the Tribunal has proceeded is that the

dealer-assessees were not allowed the opportunity to cross-examine

the witnesses whose statements have been relied upon in the

proceedings.

3. Once the aforesaid findings are the basis of the order of

the Tribunal, it would hardly lead to inference that a question of law

would arise for determination of this Court much less a substantial

question of law, as envisaged by Section 35G of the Act. We have

tried to spell out from the order of the Commissioner the lack of

opportunity in returning the seized documents, in permitting the

cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements were recorded

under Section 14 of the Act and the prejudice which might have been

caused to the dealer-assessees. We have no reason to displaced the

findings recorded by the Tribunal. As far as the seized documents

which were required to be returned, the same is also supported by

Circular No. 42/88-CX.6, dated 24.5.1988 and Circular No. 171/5/96-

CX., dated 2.2.1996. We are further of the view that the Tribunal has

taken correct view by remanding the case to the Original Authority

for passing the order afresh by adopting fair procedure and by issuing

direction to the revenue-appellant to return the un-relied documents

as per the circulars. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the

same is dismissed.

                                                    (M.M. KUMAR)
                                                       JUDGE
 CEA No. 69 of 2008             3

                     (H.S. BHALLA)
March 17, 2009           JUDGE

Pkapoor