JUDGMENT K.S. Jhaveri, J. - By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Anubhav Sinha, who was Commissioner (the then). 2. This Court while admitting the appeal on 30-3-2015, framed following substantial questions of law:- "(1) Whether non-supply of resumed records which are relied upon in SCN and adjudication order constitute violation of principles of natural justice, when not provided in spite of preliminary objections and request letters? (2) Whether onus of proving classification was on the part of appellant when all the resumed and relied upon documents were not supplied to him in spite of repeated requests?" 3. Learned counsel for appellant has pointed out that the resumption memo prepared on 20-12-2003 and he contended that when reply was filed a specific contention was raised in the reply to the show cause notice that the documents dated 15-1-2004 were not supplied and those have been considered by the authority in its order; more particularly in para 9.3, reads as under :- "That in the Show Cause Notice list of relied upon documents is said to be enclosed whereas no said list as well as documents have been provided along with the Show Cause Notice, therefore, the list as well as relied upon documents may be provided and 30 days time may be given from the date of supply of documents to submit the final reply." 4. However, specific contention was raised by the authority and the same was considered as documents which were referred in the notice, have been supplied to him but nothing on documents which sought to be relied upon, had been made by the authority, it has been observed as under :- "I find that the taxable value on which service tax of Rs. 2,59,116/- from October, 1998 to December, 2001 was not paid by the assessee was worked out on the basis of the records resumed during the search hence the request of the assessee for copies of the relied upon documents is merely play to delay the adjudication proceedings. 2,59,116/- from October, 1998 to December, 2001 was not paid by the assessee was worked out on the basis of the records resumed during the search hence the request of the assessee for copies of the relied upon documents is merely play to delay the adjudication proceedings. The assessee''s submission that the show cause notice for the period October, 1998 to December, 2001 was time-barred does not hold good as the evasion came to notice of the department only when a search was conducted at the premises of the assessee and not information regarding the service tax due was available with the department or provided by the assessee till the search was conducted thus it is clearly a case of misstatement, suppression and fraud and in such cases time period of issuance of show cause notice is five years instead of one year." 5. The same contention was also raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) and also before the CESTAT. But nothing has come on record to establish that the documents which was relied upon and referred in order were supplied to the assessee. 6. However, Mr. Ranka has stated that the documents which have referred in the resumption memo are only receipt, register and the bill books and no other important documents are seized and he has relied upon statement of assessee recorded, which is as under :- ^^vf/kdkfj;ksa us dk;Zokgh ÁkjEHk djus ls iwoZ o lekfIr ds i'pkr~ vius vki dks ryk'kh gsrq ÁLrqr fd;k ftls geus o Jh dqekor th us fou;iwoZd euk fd;kA** and contended that in view of the observations wherein it has been observed as under :- (iv) On levy of penalty under section 78 the assessee submits that he has cooperated with the Department by supplying information. He has made available the bill books and other amount and Balance sheet of years under review. He has even cooperated by attending office of Department to record his statement. The assessee submits that the recording of statement was not proper and he was not allowed the natural right of presence of his assistant/counsel, etc. The copy of statement supplied bears information available and he has concealed nothing nor suppressed any information. It is right of the Department to question the assessee and so is the assessee having a right to get his answer properly recorded in the statement. The copy of statement supplied bears information available and he has concealed nothing nor suppressed any information. It is right of the Department to question the assessee and so is the assessee having a right to get his answer properly recorded in the statement. The assessee should not be penalized for the privilege of getting his answer recorded properly. They requested that no penalty be imposed under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. 7. Learned counsel for respondent contended that the contention quoted above was taken after filing five replies on different dates and there is nothing but a technique to delay the proceedings. 8. However, he mentioned that 2003 proceedings were concluded by the first authority in year 2010, which has observed as under:- "8. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur-I has allocated this case to the undersigned for adjudication vide order issued under C.No. V (ST) 30/45/2009/3251 dated 25-2-2010." However, Mr. Sameer Jain raised this contention after filing five different replies. The contention raised is afterthought with a view to delay proceedings. Mr. Ranka has also shown that the Tribunal has also not considered the same. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. It is well-settled principle of law that the person who is to take an action is required to supply basic documents, which sought to be relied upon. The documents though referred in the show cause notice were not given to the assessee by the Tribunal. 11. The Tribunal has seriously committed an error in dealing with issue in view of the decision of this Court in case of P.G.O. Processors Private Limited v. Commissioner, C.Ex., 2000 (122) E.L.T. 26 (Raj.) the documents which are required to be given to the assessee. It has been observed as under :- "3. The Commissioner of Central Excise, the respondent No. 2, issued a show cause notice on 31-5-1999 to the petitioner and called upon it to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be denied the status of an independent processor as defined in the Notification Nos. 36/98-C.E. (N.T.) and No. 42/98-C.E. (N.T.) both dated 10-12-1998 in view of the allegations made in the show cause notice dated 15-1-1999. 36/98-C.E. (N.T.) and No. 42/98-C.E. (N.T.) both dated 10-12-1998 in view of the allegations made in the show cause notice dated 15-1-1999. After receiving the first show cause notice dated 15-1-1999, during the pendency of earlier petition itself the petitioner had moved applications dated 18-2-1999, 25-2-1999, 8-3-1999, 12-3-1999, 27-3-1999, 3-4-1999 and 16-4-1999 for obtaining copies of the documents mentioned in Annex. 2 of the show cause notice dated 15-1-1999 as those documents were being relied upon by the department for taking the action proposed in the said show cause notice. The respondents did not allow the request of supply of copies but instead were prepared to give an opportunity to examine the records and obtain photocopies of the same. After some correspondence and ''after receiving some of the copies required but not all, the petitioner filed this petition praying for quashing of the show cause notice dated 15-1-1999 and 31-5-1999, restraining the respondent No. 1 from proceeding further with the show cause notice dated 15-1-1999 and 31-5-1999, for a declaration that the Registration Certificate issued to the petitioner is not liable to be revoked and/or suspended and for a declaration that the petitioner company was an independent processor within the meaning of notifications 36/98 and 42/98 both dated 10-12-1998. In the alternative it was also prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to furnish authenticated copies of the documents mentioned in the letter dated 19-6-1999 and on which reliance has been placed in the impugned notices and the respondents may be restrained from proceeding against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned show cause notices dated 15-1-1999 and 31-5-1999 without supplying the copies demanded by the petitioner in the letter dated 19-6-1999. 10. The only question therefore which remains to be answered is whether the petitioner can insist on supply of an authenticated copy of a document or an opportunity to inspect the document and if desired obtain a photocopy thereof would serve the ends of justice and meet the requirements of principles of natural justice. 12. The Single Bench''s decision of the Karnataka High Court in Reletronics Ltd. (supra) is not on the question as to whether inspection would be a proper substitute for supply of copies. However, it only observes that the requirement is to furnish copies of the materials relied upon in the show cause notice and not on the merits and other records which is referred. However, it only observes that the requirement is to furnish copies of the materials relied upon in the show cause notice and not on the merits and other records which is referred. There is a difference between relying upon documents and referring to the same. As already seen in the facts of this case, it cannot be disputed that the documents were relied on in the show cause notice and they were not just referred to. In Roshanlal Agarwal''s case (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court only directed the Department of the Union of India to make available to the assessee concerned copies of all documents and records relied upon by the department. Again in this case, the question whether inspection would be a proper substitute for supply of copies was not before the Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in Jayantilal A. Shah and Am. v. Commr. of Central Excise, Mumbai-VI [1999 (34) RLT 466] . In that case the copies of the relied upon documents were supplied along with the show cause notice. But the copies were illegible and on a complaint made, the assessee was told to inspect the record and take photostat copies. This was not approved by the CEGAT observing that when the Department gives a show cause notice, proposing to initiate action for alleged violation of law, it is the duty cast upon the department to serve legible copies on which reliance is being made by the department for initiating action. In this case, of course the opportunity to inspect the document and take photocopies was not considered to be a proper substitute for supply of legible copies of the relied upon documents. However, since the documents, though illegible, were supplied along with the show cause notice, it was clear that the department also was initially of the opinion that it was necessary to supply copies of those documents. 15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we allow this petition and direct the respondent No. 1 to furnish authentic copies of the documents relied upon in the show cause notices dated 15-1-1999 and 31-5-1999, as enumerated in the petitioner's letter dated 19-6-1999 addressed to the respondent No. 1 and proceed to adjudicate on the show cause notice only after supply of such copies." 12. In that view of the matter, we remit back the matter to the first authority. The petitioner will appear before the first authority on 6-11-2017 and authority will settle the matter within a period of four weeks and reply after the documents are supplied to the appellant. Reply will be filed if required within the period of three weeks from receipt of the documents. Therefore, issue No. 1 is answered in favour of assessee. 13. We are not deciding the issue No. 2 since we are remitting matter back to the first authority. The order of the Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals) are set aside. 14. The appeal stands allowed.