Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Micro Melt Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 10 June, 2003
ORDER Krishna Kumar, Member (J)
1. Shri P.V. Sheth, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the period involved is 1996-1997 to 31st December, 1998 and January 1999 to March 2000. The duty demand for the first period is Rs. 77,177/- and an equal amount of penalty has been imposed. Further amount of penalty of Rs. 30,000/- has been imposed under Rule 172Q. For the second period the duty demand is Rs. 1,18,611/- and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has been imposed as penalty under Rule 173Q. He also submitted that Show Cause Notice for the first period was issued on 05/10/1999 which is clearly beyond the permissible period and as such the same is time barred. As regards the second period two show cause notices dtd.14/09/1999 and 10/02/2000 were issued which are well within the time limit. His contention is that for the first time a letter in November 2000 was issued asking for the cost accountant certificate. The said letter was received after the order in original has already been passed and as such no such certificate has been produced even before the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Shri B.B. Sarkar, learned J.D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that since the letter was issued to the appellants asking for cost accountant certificate to show as to how the cost is to be apportioned for inclusion in the assessable value, which was incumbent on the appellant to have produced such a certificate before the Commissioner (Appeals). He also contended that the appellants have at no stage contested the non ineludibility of the cost of dyes. Therefore, they may be asked to deposit the entire amount of duty and penalty.
3. After hearing both sides and perusal of the records, I find that the appellants has utterly failed to produce the cost accountant certificate in order to substantiate their stand for apportionment of the cost of the dyes in the assessable value. Besides, they have no where contested the non-inclusion of the cost of the dyes in the assessable value proportionately. Therefore, I am of the view that the appellant has failed to make out a strong prima facie case for complete waiver of duty and penalty. I, therefore, direct the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh towards the duty amount against both the appeals by 15/07/2003. On such deposit being made, I dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of balance amount of duty and penalty. The matter to come up for reporting compliance on 18/07/2003.
(Pronounced in Court)