Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 425 (GUJ)

Madhusudan Industries Ltd. v. Union of India

2017-02-20

A.S.SUPEHIA, HARSHA DEVANI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Harsha Devani, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the Order No. A/10080/2017 dated 16.01.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Tribunal") whereby the Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal as not maintainable at the stage of final hearing on the ground that the panchnamas, statements by the appellants are illegible and some of the statements are in vernacular language (Gujarati) and not translated ones leading to difficulty in considering the grounds raised in assailing the order impugned before it. 2. The facts of the case stated briefly are that the petitioner No. 1, M/s. Madhusudan Industries Ltd. is a Company which, at the relevant time, was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of goods like Refined Edible Oil, Vanaspati etc. A show cause notice F. No. V. 15/15-145/Dem/2003-04 dated 08.02.2005 came to be issued by the third respondent, proposing to recover excise duty aggregating to Rs. 58,73,265/- on various quantities of Vanaspati cleared from the petitioner's factory during March and April, 2003, with interest and penalty. It is the case of the petitioner that it filed various replies and notes of written submission in the adjudication proceedings before the third respondent - Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-III and amongst other documents, also submitted affidavits of 22 dealers whose statements were recorded by the Investigating Officers. The show cause notice culminated into an Order in Original No. 29/Commr/2005 dated 19.12.2005, whereby the third respondent confirmed the central excise duty demand of Rs. 54,38,208/- with interest and penalty equal to the amount of duty. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a substantive appeal along with a stay application before the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay. After hearing the petitioners on the stay application on 25.08.2006, the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay directed pre-deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- and waived condition of pre-deposit of the rest of the disputed amounts. The petitioner company has complied with the direction of pre-deposit and the stay order made by the Appellate Tribunal on 25.08.2006 had been continued all throughout. 3. After hearing the petitioners on the stay application on 25.08.2006, the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay directed pre-deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- and waived condition of pre-deposit of the rest of the disputed amounts. The petitioner company has complied with the direction of pre-deposit and the stay order made by the Appellate Tribunal on 25.08.2006 had been continued all throughout. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that when an Additional Bench of the Appellate Tribunal was set up at Ahmedabad by the end of October, 2006, the above Appeal No. E/844/2006 came to be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, along with all other appeals arising out of the State of Gujarat. The appeal was heard by a Bench of the Appellate Tribunal, at Ahmedabad and the order was reserved after a full-fledged hearing, but the appeal could not be decided because one of the Members of the Division Bench that heard the appeal unfortunately expired soon thereafter. The appeal was thereafter heard again by another Division Bench of the Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad and the order was reserved after a full-fledged hearing, but the appeal could not be decided even on that occasion because one of the Members of the Division Bench that heard the appeal came to be transferred. Thereafter, the appeal was being listed before the Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad from time to time, but it was not heard for one or the other reason. 4. It is further the case of the petitioners that the above referred appeal was thereafter listed before a Division Bench of Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad on 16.01.2017 when submissions were made by the petitioners through their advocate. After hearing the appeal for some time, the Appellate Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 16.01.2017 dismissing the appeal as not maintainable in view of the fact that the panchnamas and statements on record of the appeal were illegible and some statements were in Gujarati language and were not translated, and also that scrutiny of statements, panchnamas and all other relevant documents, namely, transporters challans, invoices etc. was necessary but the documents were not readable. The Appellate Tribunal was further of the view that the appeal was of 2006 and hence, there was no reason to keep it pending. However, while dismissing the appeal as not maintainable, the Appellate Tribunal gave liberty to revive the appeal after filing legible copies of the documents, translated statements etc. was necessary but the documents were not readable. The Appellate Tribunal was further of the view that the appeal was of 2006 and hence, there was no reason to keep it pending. However, while dismissing the appeal as not maintainable, the Appellate Tribunal gave liberty to revive the appeal after filing legible copies of the documents, translated statements etc. within a reasonable period of time, as per law. Consequently, the petitioner's appeal, which was filed in March, 2006 stands dismissed as non-maintainable though the appeal was not only maintainable but it was heard twice finally and orders on merits were reserved; and now the dismissal of the appeal exposes the petitioner company to recovery proceedings for the rest of the amount of duty, interest and penalty inasmuch as, dismissal of the appeal at this stage results in dismissal of the stay order made by the Appellate Tribunal as far back as 25.08.2006 and hence, this petition. 5. Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners assailed the impugned order by submitting that the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal is not a solitary instance before the Appellate Tribunal, but over a hundred such orders have been made by the Appellate Tribunal during last four to five months dismissing about three hundred or so appeals of various appellants, who had been waiting for their turn for final hearing for several years, only on the ground that all the documents shown as relied upon in the show cause notice were not filed with the appeal, and therefore, the appeals were not maintainable. It was submitted that the statutory provisions do not lay down that an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was not maintainable if the documents like statements recorded by the Investigating Officers, panchnamas etc. were not submitted with the appeal paper book. According to the learned counsel, if a document was not filed or the document filed with the appeal a few years back had faded and become illegible, then such document could be called for if the same was found to be vital to decide the issue involved in the appeal; but the appeal itself could not be dismissed on such ground. It was contended that when statements recorded by the Investigating Officers are extensively referred to in the show cause notice and/or the adjudication order which are submitted with the appeal and none of the parties to the appeal disputes the truthfulness or correctness of such reproduction, dismissal of appeal for not submitting full texts of the documents is neither justified nor legal. It was urged that dismissal of the appeal on such ground which results in robbing the appellant of protection of the stay order made during the pendency of the appeal after hearing the parties, is wholly undesirable, impermissible and without jurisdiction. 5.1 Mr. Dave further submitted that there has not been any direction from the Appellate Tribunal in this case at any point of time that the petitioner company should produce on record a particular documents or that certain documents should be translated or that a certain document was illegible, and hence, legible copies thereof should be submitted. It was submitted that since the appeal was filed in March, 2006, it was quite natural that some of the documents may have faded and some of the documents may have paled to such an extent that they were not clearly legible. But if the Appellate Tribunal found that a particular document was vital to the issue involved in the appeal and the same was required to be considered, then the appellant could have been directed to submit a clear and legible copy of such document, and a direction could also have been issued for submitting full texts of panchnamas or statements or translated copies of the statements; however, the appeal itself could not have been dismissed. It was urged that a citizen who waits for a decade for his case to be decided, cannot be condemned unheard only on the ground that some documents filed with the appeal were illegible or in a local language, more so, when the documents had become illegible because of the long period for which the Appellate Tribunal could not decide the appeal. It was submitted that the summary dismissal of the petitioner's appeal without examining merits of the case is, therefore, wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. It was submitted that the summary dismissal of the petitioner's appeal without examining merits of the case is, therefore, wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 5.2 It was next submitted that there is no statutory provision under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and/or the Customs Act, 1962 as well as the Finance Act, 1994 laying down a condition that the appeal would be maintainable only if documents relied upon by the revenue while issuing the show cause notice were submitted with the appeal papers. Reference was made to the provisions of section 35B of the Central Excise Act under which the petitioner company filed the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, to point out that the same nowhere lays down any such condition. It was submitted that under rule 9 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the "rules") the only requirement for filing the appeal is to submit a certified copy of the order appealed against. Rule 16 of the rules refers to filing of a paper book, but there also, it is laid down that a paper book containing copies of the documents which the appellant proposes to rely upon on the hearing of the appeal may be filed by way of a paper book. It was submitted that therefore, the view of the Appellate Tribunal that an appeal was not maintainable if all documents relied upon while issuing the show cause notice are not submitted, is illegal and contrary to the statutory scheme. 5.3 The learned advocate further submitted that submission of full texts of statements of witnesses, panchnamas and such documents with the appeal is not necessary when relevant extracts of such documents reproduced in the show cause notice or the orders of the departmental authorities, and no party to the appeal disputes the correctness or truthfulness of such reproduction. 5.3 The learned advocate further submitted that submission of full texts of statements of witnesses, panchnamas and such documents with the appeal is not necessary when relevant extracts of such documents reproduced in the show cause notice or the orders of the departmental authorities, and no party to the appeal disputes the correctness or truthfulness of such reproduction. According to the learned counsel, without hearing the case and without coming to a prima facie conclusion that the full text of a particular statement or document was really required for deciding the issues involved in the appeal, insisting on production of all documents referred to or relied upon in the show cause notice may be avoided because wholesale production of all documents without ascertaining whether they were actually required for deciding the appeal or not is not necessary, and it would only burden the record of the appeal. It was submitted that if a particular document is found relevant and necessary by the Appellate Tribunal during the hearing of the appeal and such document was not on record, then opportunity to produce a copy of such document ought to be allowed to the appellant and a direction ought to be given to the revenue's representative also to bring such document from their files, because it would be in the interest of justice for both sides to bring on record a document that the Appellate Tribunal finds to be necessary and vital to decide the issues involved in the appeal. It was further submitted that dismissal of appeals on the ground that the documents referred to in the show cause notice and/or the orders passed by the departmental authorities were not filed with the appeal is unjustified and uncalled for, more so when the appeal remained pending before the Tribunal for several years. It was, accordingly, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order and restoring the appeal to file with a direction to the Appellate Tribunal to decide the same on merits. 6. Opposing the appeal, Mr. Dhaval Vyas, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, invited the attention of the court to the provisions of rule 5 of rules, to submit that the same provide that the language of the Appellate Tribunal is English and that a Bench in its discretion may permit the use of Hindi in its proceedings. 6. Opposing the appeal, Mr. Dhaval Vyas, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, invited the attention of the court to the provisions of rule 5 of rules, to submit that the same provide that the language of the Appellate Tribunal is English and that a Bench in its discretion may permit the use of Hindi in its proceedings. It was submitted that in the facts of this case, the affidavits filed by some of the witnesses as well as the statements of some of the witnesses are in Gujarati. Therefore, when the language of the Appellate Tribunal is in English and the Appellate Tribunal, in its discretion can permit use of Hindi in its proceedings, it was wholly justified in insisting upon furnishing of translations of the documents which are in the vernacular language. Reference was also made to sub-rule (7) of rule 16 of the rules, which provides that all paper books shall contain clearly legible documents duly paged, indexed and be tagged firmly. It was submitted that furnishing of legible documents is the need of the statute, therefore, no fault can be found in the approach of the Appellate Tribunal in insisting upon legible documents being filed. Reference was also made to rule 41 of the rules, which bears the heading "Orders and directions in certain cases" and lays down that the Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect or in relation to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process of to secure the ends of justice. It was submitted that therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was wholly justified in directing the appellants to produce legible copies of documents which were not legible and translated copies of documents which were in the vernacular language. 7. In rejoinder, Mr. Paresh Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if the translated copies are really necessary, it is permissible for the Appellate Tribunal to call for the same. 7. In rejoinder, Mr. Paresh Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if the translated copies are really necessary, it is permissible for the Appellate Tribunal to call for the same. However, the attention of the court was invited to the fact that Commissioner of Central Excise has passed the Order-in-Original without seeking translated copies of the documents which are in Gujarati language, to submit that it is not necessary to furnish translations of all the documents/statements and that the Appellate Tribunal can always call for copies of any document or translation of any of the documents if it so deems fit, but after due application of mind and should not insist upon production of all documents on which the revenue has relied upon and translations of all documents which are in the vernacular language without examining whether they are relevant or not. 8. In the backdrop of the facts and contentions noted hereinabove, a brief reference may be made to the relevant statutory provisions. Section 35B of the Act makes provision for appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Section 35C of the Act bears the heading "Orders of Appellate Tribunal" and provides that the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against or may refer the case back to the authority which passed such decision or order with such directions as the Appellate Tribunal may think fit, for a fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, after taking additional evidence, if necessary. 9. Sub-section (2A) of section 35 of the Act postulates that the Appellate Tribunal shall, where it is possible to do so, hear and decide every appeal within a period of three years from the date on which such appeal is filed. 9. Sub-section (2A) of section 35 of the Act postulates that the Appellate Tribunal shall, where it is possible to do so, hear and decide every appeal within a period of three years from the date on which such appeal is filed. Section 35F of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time when the appeal came to be filed, provided for "Deposit, pending appeal of duty demanded or penalty levied" and provided that where in an appeal under that Chapter, the decision or order appealed against relates to any duty demanded in respect of goods not under the control of central excise authorities or any penalty levied under the Act, the person desirous of appealing against such order shall, pending the appeal, deposit with the adjudicating authority the duty demanded or the penalty levied. The proviso thereto provided for dispensation of such deposit in the circumstances specified therein. Section 35F of the Act has since been amended and provides that the Tribunal or Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be, shall not entertain any appeal unless the appellant has deposited the percentage of duty and/or penalty as laid down thereunder. Therefore, there is a mandate to deposit the amount as provided under section 35F of the Act, failing which the appeal cannot be entertained. 10. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (6) of section 129C of the Customs Act, 1962 read with sub-section (1) of section 35D of the Central excise and Salt Act, 1944 and sub-section (1) of section 81B of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has made the rules called the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Rule 9 of the said rules bears the heading "What to accompany memorandum of appeal?" and provides for filing of memorandum of appeal which is required to be heard by a Two-Member Bench to be filed in quadruplicate and accompanied by four copies, one of which shall be a certified copy of the order appealed against in case of an appeal against the original order passed by the Additional Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Excise or Customs and where such an order has been passed in appeal or revision, four copies (one of which shall be a certified copy) of the order passed in appeal or in revision and four copies of the order of the original authority. Thus, rule 9 of the rules requires that the memorandum of appeal be accompanied by a copy of the order impugned therein. 11. Rule 11 of the rules provides for "Rejection or amendment of memorandum of appeal" and lays down that the Tribunal may, in its discretion, on sufficient cause being shown, accept a memorandum of appeal which is not accompanied by the documents referred to in rule 9 or is in any other way defective, and in such cases may require the appellant to file such documents or, as the case may be, make the necessary amendments within such time as it may allow. Sub-rule (2) of rule 11 of the rules provides that the Tribunal may reject the memorandum of appeal referred to in sub-rule (1), if the documents referred to therein are not produced, or the amendments are not made, within the time-limit allowed. Rule 16 of the rules provides for "Preparation of paper book" and reads thus: "RULE 16. Preparation of paper book: (1) The appellant shall, along with the appeal or within one month of filing of the appeal, submit in such number of copies as of the memorandum of appeal, a paper book containing copies of the documents, statements of witnesses and other papers on the file of, or referred to in the orders of, the departmental authorities, which he proposes to rely upon at the hearing of the appeal. (2) The respondent may also file a paper book containing such documents as are referred to in sub-rule (1), which he proposes to rely upon at the time of hearing of the appeal, in such number of copies as of the memorandum of appeal, within one month of the service of the notice of the filing of the appeal on him, or within two weeks of the service of the paper book, whichever is later. (3) The Tribunal may, in its discretion, allow the filing of any paper book referred to in sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) after the expiry of the period referred to therein. (4) The Tribunal may on its own motion direct the preparation of as many copies as may be required of a paper book by and at the cost of the appellant or the respondent, containing copies of such statements, papers or documents as it may consider necessary for the proper disposal of the appeal. (5) The President may in his discretion direct by a general or special order that only such documents as may be specified by him in his order may be initially filed with the appeal; and the paper book as prescribed in sub-rules (1) and (2) may be filed subsequently on receipt of notice of hearing of the appeal by way of a general or specific notice for the cases or advance cause list. The President may further direct that in case of non-filing of the documents as specified under this Rule, the Registrar/Deputy Registrar or any other authorized officer would be competent to return the specified documents or sets of documents and to receive the same back only after rectification of the defects to the satisfaction of the proper officer or the Bench as the case may be and on the return the case may be assigned a new number. (6) President may by a general or special order allow attestation of the documents filed along with appeal/application or as a part of paper book or otherwise by a gazetted officer or such other person as may be authorized by the President to attest or certify such documents or photo copies thereof. (7) All paper books shall contain clearly legible documents duly paged, indexed and be tagged firmly." 12. (7) All paper books shall contain clearly legible documents duly paged, indexed and be tagged firmly." 12. On a conjoint reading of the above rules, what emerges is that under sub-rule (1) of rule 11 of the rules, the Tribunal can upon sufficient cause being shown, in its discretion, accept a memorandum of appeal even if it is not accompanied by the documents referred to in rule 9 or is in any other way defective and in such cases may allow the appellant to file such documents, or make necessary amendment within such time as it may allow. Under sub-rule (2) of rule 11, the Tribunal may reject the memorandum of appeal referred to in sub-rule (1) if the documents referred to therein are not produced or the amendments are not made, within the time-limit allowed. The rule, however, provides for rejection of memorandum of appeal at the threshold, and does not provide for rejection of an appeal which has been entertained at the initial stage. 13. Moreover, under sub-rule (2) of rule 11 of the rules, the memorandum of appeal can be rejected provided it is not accompanied by the documents referred to in rule 9, namely, four copies, out of which one shall be a certified copy the order appealed against in the case of an appeal against the original order passed by the Additional Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Excise or Customs and where such an order has been passed in appeal or revision, four copies (one of which shall be a certified copy) of the order in appeal or in revision and four copies of the order of the original authority. Sub-rule (2) of rule 11, however, does not permit the Tribunal to reject the memorandum of appeal on account of non-filing of documents other than the order appealed against if it is an original order, and in case where the order appealed against is an order in appeal, copies of such order and the order passed by the original authority. 14. 14. Rule 16 of the rules provides that the appellant shall, along with the appeal or within one month of filing of the appeal, submit in such number of copies as of the memorandum of appeal, a paper book containing copies of the documents, statements of witnesses and other papers on the file of, or referred to in the orders of, the departmental authorities, which he proposes to rely upon at the hearing of the appeal. Sub-rule (5) of rule 16 of the rules provides that the President may in his discretion direct by a general or special order that only such documents as may be specified by him in his order may be initially filed with the appeal; and the paper book as prescribed in sub-rules (1) and (2) may be filed subsequently on receipt of notice of hearing of the appeal by way of a general or specific notice for the cases or advance cause list. The President may further direct that in case of non-filing of the documents as specified under this rule, the Registrar/Deputy Registrar or any other authorised officer would be competent to return the specified documents or sets of documents and to receive the same back only after rectification of the defects to the satisfaction of the proper officer or the Bench as the case may be and on the return the case may be assigned a new number. Thus, under sub-rule (5) of rule 16 of the rules, the Registrar/Deputy Registrar or any other authorised officer would be competent to return the specified documents or sets of documents in case of any defect therein. 15. The facts of the present case are required to be examined in the light of the above statutory provisions. Having regard to the provisions of rule 11 of the rules, it is evident that at the stage of filing of memorandum of appeal, the same was found to be in order, inasmuch as, the appeal has been entertained at that time and has also been admitted. The stay application filed by the petitioners has also been heard and the petitioners have been granted relief. The very fact that the appeal has been admitted by the Tribunal after hearing the parties, is indicative of the fact that it has been found to be maintainable. The stay application filed by the petitioners has also been heard and the petitioners have been granted relief. The very fact that the appeal has been admitted by the Tribunal after hearing the parties, is indicative of the fact that it has been found to be maintainable. Moreover, when the memorandum of appeal has not been rejected by the Tribunal under sub-rule (2) of rule 11 of the rules and when the Registrar/Deputy Registrar or any other authorised officer has not returned the specified documents or set of documents as contemplated under sub-rule (5) of rule 16, and the appeal has been admitted, it can be safely presumed that the requirements of rules 9 and 16 of the rules were duly complied with at the relevant time. In the opinion of this court, an appeal which was maintainable at one stage of the proceeding, after due compliance with the provisions of the rules, cannot become non-maintainable merely because the documents submitted at the relevant time have over a period of time become faint and illegible. At best, the party can be called upon to remove the defect and provide legible documents, however, that cannot be a ground for dismissal of the appeal, and that too, on the ground of maintainability. 16. Another aspect of the matter is that sub-section (2A) of section 35C of the Act postulates that the Appellate Tribunal shall, where it is possible to do so, hear and decide every appeal within a period of three years from the date on which such appeal is filed. It cannot be gainsaid that if the appeal had been heard within the time stipulated in the statute, the problem that has arisen in the present case could have been obviated. It is only because the appeal has taken more than ten years to be decided, that the documents which were tendered at the relevant time have become illegible. Therefore, merely because the Tribunal, which has heard the appeals finally on two earlier occasions, could not render decisions at the relevant time and on account of lapse of time the accompanying documents have become illegible, the parties cannot be penalized by dismissing their appeals, that too, on the ground of maintainability. Therefore, merely because the Tribunal, which has heard the appeals finally on two earlier occasions, could not render decisions at the relevant time and on account of lapse of time the accompanying documents have become illegible, the parties cannot be penalized by dismissing their appeals, that too, on the ground of maintainability. One fails to understand as to how an appeal which was maintainable at the initial stage becomes non-maintainable at a subsequent stage without there being any change in the statutory provisions. It has been pointed out that, this is not a singular case in which the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal at the final hearing stage, but in 300 or so cases, on the ground of non-submission of documents relied upon the adjudicating authority or the documents having become illegible on account of lapse of time or similar grounds, which, in the opinion of this court reflects a really sorry state of affairs. The Tribunal, it appears, in its quest for easy disposals has abdicated its function of adjudicating cases on merits and has made a short shrift of the matters and in the process, subjected the parties to undue difficulties and harassment. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the consequences of dismissal of the appeal at this stage with liberty to file the appeal again, viz., that the interim orders passed in the favour of the assesses' would no longer survive and they would be faced with recovery proceedings causing immense prejudice to them. 17. Another difficult that may arise is when an appeal is filed after the order of dismissal, it would be governed by the amended provisions of the Act which provide for deposit of a percentage of the duty amount and penalty as a condition precedent for filing the appeal. Thus, appeals which have become ripe for hearing after many years, on account of dismissal thereof, be required to be filed again the go through entire gamut including admission of the appeal, which may take years together to be heard finally. 18. The matter is required to be viewed from yet another angle. Thus, appeals which have become ripe for hearing after many years, on account of dismissal thereof, be required to be filed again the go through entire gamut including admission of the appeal, which may take years together to be heard finally. 18. The matter is required to be viewed from yet another angle. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of the court to the fact that rule 16 of the rules requires the parties to file only those documents on which they seek to place reliance, whereas the Tribunal has held that an appeal is not maintainable if the documents on which the adjudicating authority has relied upon while issuing the show cause notice are not submitted, to submit that such insistence on the part of the Tribunal is illegal and contrary to the statutory scheme. Having regard to the provisions of the Act and the rules as referred to hereinabove, it is evident that there is nothing therein which requires an appellant to produce all the documents relied upon for the purpose of issuance of show cause notice. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, sub-rule (1) of rule 16 of the rules requires the appellant to submit a paper book containing copies of the documents, statements of witnesses and other papers on the file of, or referred to in the orders of, the departmental authorities, which he places reliance upon and not all the documents, statements of witnesses and other papers on the file of, or referred to in the orders of, the departmental authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in insisting upon the submission of all the documents relied upon while issuing the show cause notice. However, in a given case, if during the course of hearing the Tribunal, upon application of mind, finds it necessary to examine a document which has not been placed on record, it is not precluded from calling upon the parties to produce the same. 19. The learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that before the matters reached the Tribunal, they would have travelled before the adjudicating authority and then before the Commissioner (Appeals), who too, are not conversant with the vernacular language. 19. The learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that before the matters reached the Tribunal, they would have travelled before the adjudicating authority and then before the Commissioner (Appeals), who too, are not conversant with the vernacular language. Therefore, in cases where the lower authorities have not thought it fit to call for the translations of such statements, there is no warrant for the Tribunal to demand the same without examining the necessity of furnishing such translations. It was pointed out that the order-in-original ordinarily contains the gist of the statements and by and large, there is no necessity for furnishing the translations of the statements of witnesses. In the opinion of this court, the grievance voiced by the learned counsel is justified, inasmuch as there is no need for the Tribunal to insist upon furnishing the translated version of statements of witnesses/documents, without first examining as to whether or not the material on record is sufficient for the purpose of deciding the appeal and as to whether it is necessary to look into the statements which are in the vernacular language. In a given case, if the Tribunal feels that what is recorded by the authorities below is not sufficient and that it is necessary to refer to the statements of witnesses, the Tribunal can always call upon the parties to furnish translated versions of the statements of such witnesses, however, insistence upon furnishing the translations of statements/affidavits of witnesses, without examining the relevance thereof, does not appear to be either reasonable or proper. 20. It is further noticed that in some cases, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals in view of the submissions of the Authorised Representatives of the revenue that the relevant documents have not been filed with the appeal paper book. As noticed earlier, rule 16 of the rules requires the appellant to file a paper book containing copies of the documents, statements of witnesses and other papers on the file of, or referred to in the orders of, the departmental authorities, which he proposes to rely upon at the hearing of the appeal. It goes without saying, therefore, that the paper book would comprise of documents on which the appellant proposes to rely upon. It goes without saying, therefore, that the paper book would comprise of documents on which the appellant proposes to rely upon. If the authorized representative believes that other documents are relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the appeal, it is for the revenue to file a paper book containing such documents on which it proposes to rely upon at the time of hearing of the appeal and the burden on producing such documents cannot be thrown on the appellant who does not seek to place reliance upon the same. Moreover, whether or not the documents filed by the appellant are sufficient for the purpose of deciding the appeal can be ascertained only when the appeal is taken up for hearing and the Tribunal applies its mind to the same and not without examining the sufficiency or otherwise of the documents filed by the appellant. The Tribunal is, therefore, not justified in dismissing appeals on the ground of maintainability merely because the Authorised Representative submitted that the relied upon documents were not submitted by the appellant. 21. The learned advocate for the petitioners has also drawn the attention of the court to the fact that the regular Division Bench of the Tribunal is not available as there is only a Single Member at Ahmedabad and that a Division Bench is constituted only when a Member from another Bench is deputed to the Bench at Ahmedabad. It was submitted that in these circumstances, even if the documents are filed by the appellants in terms of the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal, the appeals would not stand revived till a Division Bench is available. In the meanwhile, the revenue may proceed to recover the demands under the orders-in-original or the orders which are subject matters of challenge before the Tribunal, which would act to the miseries of the assesses. 22. In the other orders passed by the Tribunal which have been annexed along with the petition, the Tribunal has given opportunity to the appellants therein to revive the appeals on production of the documents within a reasonable period as per law. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that in many cases, due to efflux of time such documents may not be available and that in the absence of such documents, those appellants would not be in a position to revive the appeals for all times to come. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that in many cases, due to efflux of time such documents may not be available and that in the absence of such documents, those appellants would not be in a position to revive the appeals for all times to come. Therefore, the orders of dismissals of appeals on the ground of maintainability with liberty to revive after the documents are filed, would finally seal the fate of those appellants. In the opinion of this court, the Tribunal is not justified in dismissing appeals in this manner, that too, with a condition that the appeal could be revived if all the documents are produced, which is asking for the impossible. Moreover, when there is no provision of law which provides for production of documents as stipulated by the Tribunal while dismissing the appeals, the Tribunal is not justified in perfunctorily dismissing appeals on grounds which are not envisaged under any statutory provision. 23. The Tribunal while dismissing appeals in the case of petitioner and several other cases, has reserved liberty to the appellants to revive the appeals after filing legible copies of documents, translated statements, legible copies of the transporters challans, invoices, etc. within a reasonable period of time, as per law. Since the condition imposed by the Tribunal while reserving liberty to the concerned appellant to revive the appeal is not backed by any statutory provision, it would not be possible for the concerned parties to ascertain as to what is the reasonable period as per law. Moreover, as pointed out by the learned advocate for the petitioners, many of these documents by virtue of their very nature, viz. transporters challans, invoices, may not be available at this stage after a lapse of such a long period of time, in which case the parties would not be in a position to even seek revival of the appeals. In the aforesaid premises, having regard to the fact that large number of appeals have been dismissed on similar grounds, if in such cases applications for restoration are made by the parties, it is expected that the Tribunal would take a pragmatic view keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. 24. In the light of the above discussion, the petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 16.01.2017 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad is hereby quashed and set aside. 24. In the light of the above discussion, the petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 16.01.2017 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad is hereby quashed and set aside. The appeal as well as the interim orders made therein are restored to file at the stage when the impugned order came to be passed. Rule is made absolute accordingly to the aforesaid extent. .