VAIBHAV AUTO INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Stay Petition is taken up for disposal as per the direction of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in judgment in SCA No. 590/2014. The appellant herein had filed an application for waiver of pre -deposit of amounts involved which was disposed of by this Bench by an order dated 11 -7 -2013 which was taken in appeal by the appellant before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. Hon'ble High Court directed the Bench in their judgment dated 6 -3 -2014, to consider the issue afresh after imposing cost on the appellant. Hon'ble High Court tentatively fixed the date as 21 -4 -2014 for hearing and disposing the Stay Petition on merit and in accordance with the law. When the matter was called, ld. Consultant on record for the appellant had filed submissions that he is not able to appear before the Bench as he is busy in an inspection of one of his client by the inspector from Organization for Prevention of Chemical Weapons, Hague. He has also mentioned in the letter that we should consider the facts in his letter dated 19 -3 -2014 for the purpose of disposing the Stay Petition. We have considered the said request and take up the Stay Petition for disposal.

(2.) HEARD the ld. Departmental Representative.

(3.) LD . Consultants written submissions indicate that the adjudicating authority has passed the order in violation of principles of natural justice and is a colourable exercise of his powers inasmuch as adjudicating authority had chosen to rely on documents which were not supplied to them. It is also his submission that the appellant had received the relied upon documents in soft copy written on CD, but they were not in a position to open the said CD. Ld. Counsel also indicated in the written submissions that they were in correspondence with the authorities for supply of copies of relied upon documents. It is also his submission that for submitting effective reply copies of relied upon documents needs to be furnished by the Department. It is submitted that the applicant has a strong prima facie case and that the appellant's request for cross -examination of investigating officer and other persons was not considered. It is his submission that the information procured from RTO is based on the documents which did not give any inference that the vehicles were manufactured by a particular manufacturer. He has also placed reliance on provisions of Central Motor Act and the rules made therein.