- (1.) M/s. Hindustan Mint & Agro Products (P) Ltd. is a company engaged in manufacturing of Menthol Crystal, Menthol Powder, De-mentholised Oil (DMO), Peppermint Oil, Spearmint Oil, Terpine Oil, etc. It is registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944. On 21 January, 2006, a team of officers of Central Excise Department (Preventive) searched the registered office and factory premises of the company. According to the petitioners during the search that was carried by the officers, 2 CPU's containing the business records of the petitioners including the data relating to sale of final products, purchase of inputs, list of purchasers, correspondence were seized and thereafter a show cause notice dated 20/24 March, 2008 was issued to the petitioner-company alleging that it had fraudulently availed the Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 76,08,939/- without receiving any goods/inputs from the manufacturers at Jammu and had utilised such Cenvat credit for payment of duty on the clearance of goods for export/home clearance claiming rebate. The petitioners submitted an application for being provided either the 'CPUs' or the data contained in the CPUs and also demanded cross-examination of certain persons. The grievance of the petitioners basically is that the request made by the petitioners has not been considered and neither the information sought for by the petitioners has been made available nor the petitioners have been granted permission to cross-examine certain persons.
(2.) Shri S.D. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in order to submit a specific reply to the show cause notice, it was absolutely necessary for the department to supply the information that was sought and the authorities are not justified in refusing the same. The contention further is that though a communication dated 20 January, 2015 was sent by the Assistant Commissioner (Adjudication) at Chandigarh declining to furnish the information sought for by the petitioners relating to cross-examination, but the request of the petitioners for being supplied the information contained in CPUs has not been considered at all. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Kolkata-II, 2015 (324) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) and a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Novamet Industries v. Union of India, 2008 (227) E.L.T. 363 (All.) : 2009 (13) S.T.R. 108 (All.).
(3.) Shri B.K.S. Rabhuvanshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has, however, submitted that a reply was sent to the petitioners by the Assistant Commissioner (Adjudication) at Chandigarh and in case the petitioners are aggrieved, they can raise all their pleas in the proceedings that they may take resort to after the adjudicating authority decides the matter. It is also the contention that good reasons have been mentioned in the impugned communication.;