ORDER

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. - By consent of the parties, we heard this matter finally at the stage of admission.

2. This petition challenges two orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (for short "CESTAT").

3. The petitioners are the original appellants. We are not concerned with the merits of the appeal for that is pending. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the Tribunal has passed two orders copies of which are annexed as Exhibits "A" and "B" to the petition. By the first order, copy which is at Exhibit-A, the Tribunal possibly dealt with request of the parties on the supply of documents. The petitioner argued that it is deprived of an opportunity of defending the show cause notice in the absence of the copies of the documents relied upon by the Department/Revenue being not supplied. A letter of 17-42017 is relied upon. The Revenue however says that all the documents which are relied upon were supplied and therefore there is no need to supply any documents now and when the appeal of 2006 is pending.

4. The Tribunal noted these contentions and thereafter the following operative order has been passed :-

"3. Insofar as bank account is concerned, the evidence of the Bank extracted from its books of account and statement thereof issued is the appropriate evidence, which cannot be disputed in law and such statements should also be examined with reference to cash book, journal and ledger of the appellant that shall be produced before Ld. Adjudicating authority.

4. Appellant says that there were certain statements recorded from Mr. Shrinivas Acharya, Konark Plywood Pvt. Ltd., Reliable Plywood Pvt. Ltd., Welcome Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd., Shree Laxmi Saw Mills and Wood and Paper Industries. Revenue is required to produce copy of those statements before the Tribunal on the next date fixed for examination.

5. In order to facilitate the examination of the cashbook entries on cash deposit and bank deposit, the appellant shall make an application as expeditiously as possible before the Adjudicating Commissioner to fix the date and on that date appellant shall produce those records for aforesaid years for his examination. On production of such records and examination thereof, Ld. Commissioner shall send his report to Tribunal along with his adjudication record 31-7-2017.

6. The appellant lastly says that a file was recovered from the appellant containing loose papers therein. Revenue is directed to produce such file before the appellant on the date of examination of aforesaid accounting records as stated above and also before the Tribunal."

5. By the second order, copy of which is at Exhibit-B, the Tribunal passed the following directions :-

"Appellant says that it has not made application to the Learned Adjudicating Commissioner to fix a date for production of records before him for his examination as was directed by order, dated 30th May, 2017. That has obstructed the process of justice and handicapped the authority to send his report today.

2. In view of the above defiance of order of Tribunal by the appellant who has obstructed the process of justice, notice is hereby issued to it to show cause on 108-2017 as to the reason why the interim order passed on 7-7-2006 staying realization of demand to the extent stated in the order shall not be vacated and its appeals dismissed on that day. So also appellant is directed to explain the reason why contempt shall not be drawn against it for obstruction to the process of justice and such explanation with the order of Tribunal forwarded to the Hon''ble High Court at Bombay for appropriate order.

3. Appellant is also directed to file an affidavit by 10th August, 2017 stating the reason why it has not made application to the Adjudicating Commissioner for fixation of date of hearing and examination of its records as stated in the order of Tribunal passed on 30-5-2017. Copy of such affidavit be also served on Revenue by 8th August