1 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 1886 of 2010 Castrol India Ltd. ..Petitioners Vs. 1 The Union of India & ors. ..Respondents Mr.Manoj Sanklecha with Mr.Anupam Dighe and Mrs.Ruchi Madan i/b India Law Alliance for petitioners Mr.A.S.Rao with Mr.R.V.Pardeshi for respondents. CORAM: V.C.DAGA AND K.K.TATED JJ 5th April ,2010 P.C. 1 Perused petition. 2 Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3 Factual matrix reveals that the adjudicating authority directed the Range Superintendent, Range Patalganga II to carry out verification of the documents. It appears that the Range Superintendent vide his letter 2 dated 6th February,2009 expressed difficulty in conducting the desired verification on the ground that assessee had sought time upto 20th February, 2009 for pointing and submitting it to the representative of the department the invoices required for necessary verification. Before this letter could reach to the adjudicating authority, it has passed the order on 6th February 2009 itself. This act is clearly in breach of the principles of natural justice. When this fact was brought to the notice of the learned Counsel Mr. Rao appearing for the Revenue/respondents with a view to justify as to how the adjudicating authority was justified in passing the order even without affording reasonable time to the assess to produce the documents and relevant material for verification. Mr.Rao expressed his inability to justify the same and went on to submit that by consent of parties dispensing 3 with the detailed reasons in support of this order, the order-in-original dated 6th February, 2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the said authority for consideration afresh and dispose of it by reasoned order following the principles of natural justice. 4 In the above of view of the submission coming from Mr.Rao, we have no option but to set aside the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise dated 6th February 2009 and remit it to the said authority for consideration afresh. 5 It is needless to observe that in view of this order the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 1st Appellate Authority shall stand disposed of as infructuous. Consequently, the impugned order directing pre deposit would also not survive. 4 6 The petitioner is permitted to file copy of this order on the file of the 1st Appellate Authority so as to enable him to pass the formal order disposing of the appeal in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7 The Assistant Commissioner is directed to hear and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of this order. 8 The petitioners have undertaken to produce all documents within one week from today before the Range Superintendent, Range Patalganga II for his perusal and verification. Needless to say that in the event of failure on the part of the petitioners to produce the documents it would be open for the authority to proceed with the hearing of the matter without verification of the said documents. All rival contentions on merits are kept open. 5 9 In the result, Rule is made absolute in terms of the above order with no order as to costs. (K.K.TATED J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)