Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Kathe Steel Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. vs C.C.E. And Cus. on 9 September, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(115)ELT145(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. Application No. E/Stay-1376-R/99-Bom (in Appeal E/1974/99) is for waiver of deposit of differential duty amounting to Rs. 1,471/- per month. After hearing both sides the position seems to be this :
2. In the order dated 14-7-1998 the Commissioner determined under Rule 96ZP the installed capacity of applicant's furnace, duty payable by the applicant calculated on its installed capacity in accordance with the rules, to be Rs. 2,04,402/-. By a corrigendum dated 5-11-1998 this was revised to Rs. 2,77,300/-. By a further corrigendum dated 10-3-1999 the figure was again changed to Rs. 2,05,879/-. We find considerable merit, prima facie, in the contention of the representative of the applicant that the corrigendum, which had the effect of increasing the applicants duty liability, could not have been issued without giving an appropriate opportunity. Corrigendum does not cite any arithmetical error or any such factor for the change. Accordingly we waive deposit of the amount of differential duty payable between first order and the second corrigendum of Rs. 1,477/- per month, and stay its recovery.
3. Application E/Stay-1375/99-Bom. in Appeal E/1973/99-Bom. seeks stay of the order of the Commissioner dated 16-4-1999. Here the contention is that the consequent upon the issue of the first corrigendum referred to above, the applicant decided to close down its factory and by letter dated 13-11-1998 informed the Commissioner about the closure from 1st December, 1998. The factory was still not reopened. Therefore no duty would be payable during this period in terms of Rule 96ZP. We are unable to find any request made by the applicant for abetment for the period during the closure. The letter dated 25-3-1999 does not refer to this. There is neither a specific request for abetment nor this letter intimate this was the reason. There is also no evidence of receipt of the letter dated 13-11-1998 intimating the intended closure to the Commissioner. It is therefore not possible for us to say that the Commissioner after being asked for abetment under Rule 96ZP declined to grant and has demanded payment of duty during the relevant period.
4. Accordingly Application E/Stay-1375/99-Bom. is dismissed.