Hon’ble Ferdino I. Rebello, CJ.—This is an appeal by the Revenue against the orders dated 15.6.2010 and 9.7.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge was pleased to issue a direction that it is obligatory on the part of the Revenue to return the non-relied documents to the assessee. Further the relied documents or copies thereof must also be furnished to enable the petitioner (respondent herein) to plead its case effectively and defend itself. Consequently, a direction was issued to return the original and non-relied documents and to furnish the copies (hard/photo copies) of the relied upon documents to the petitioner. The petitioner was also permitted to inspect the original documents and the materials sought to be used against him during the proceedings. The learned Single Judge further directed that the petitioner shall also be allowed an opportunity of cross-examining the persons whose statements have been relied upon and referred to in the show-cause notice. The learned Single Judge held that it is natural that a person facing such an enquiry must have opportunity to cross-examine an author of a document or a person who has deposed against him during the course of an enquiry and, therefore, the appellants herein shall give to the respondent-petitioner the aforesaid opportunity.

2. Revenue has raised the following questions for consideration before this Court :

1.Whether before the reply is filed to the show-cause notice, is an assessee entitled to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were recorded, relied upon and referred to in the show-cause notice?

2.Would giving a C.D. containing documents relied upon by the Department be sufficient or is it mandatory that hard copies be given and/or the copies printed by respondent at the cost of the appellants?

3. A few facts may now be set out. Search and seizure operations were carried out at various places including the factory and office premises of the respondent. Several documents and records were seized and statements were recorded of the witnesses including the supplier of raw material and the buyers of the finished products.

The Director General of Central Excise Intelligence asked the respondent, vide letter dated 21.1.2008 to make their own arrangements for the photocopies of the statutory records and soft copy of the data in computers concerning accounted sale and purchase seized on 10.7.2007. The respondent by letter dated 21.1.2008 requested for being supplied the photocopies.

4. A show-cause notice came to be issued on 7.7.2008, wherein it was alleged that there was evasion of central excise duty by the respondent to the tune of Rs. 65,47,51,765/- under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and further Rs. 10,11,890/- under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Act. The show-cause notice contained a list of 293 documents relied upon by the Department.

5. The respondent on 20.1.2009 moved an application before the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I submitting that the physical form/hard copies of the relied upon documents to the show-cause notice dated 7.7.2008 were not supplied to them in spite of the specific requests and that the same were essential for offering their reply to the show-cause notice. A specific prayer was also made for providing the copies of the relied upon documents and return of non-relied upon documents. It is pointed out that the appellants were bound to allow the application of the respondent in view of various Circulars dated 25.4.1988, 10.6.1988 and 8.9.2006. According to the respondent, on 27.2.2009, the Commissioner of Central Excise passed an order where it was observed that the respondent had a right to be provided with copies of the relied upon documents to make proper representation and that had been met by providing a CD containing the said documents. The Commissioner further observed tha