Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Gupta Brother Steel Tube Ltd. vs C.C.E., Chandigarh on 3 May, 2001
ORDER K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)
1. The appellants manufacture Iron & Steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Cental Excise Tariff Act, 1985. they are also available modvat credit under Rule 57-A inter alia on the inputs supplied by the depots of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) under their invoices. They were issued a show cause notice dt. 30.12.94. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise Division, Chandigarh called upon them to show cause why the modvat credit amounting to Rs. 8,59,160/- availed by them during the month of July, 94 to September, 94 should not be recovered from them on the ground that the invoices on the strength of which, they had availed the modvat credit during this period were not the valid documents as per the Notfn. No. 33/94-CE(NT) dt. 4.7.94.
2. On considering the reply of the party, the Add. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vide here Order dt/ 17.11.94 confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,58,579/- on the party under Rule 57-I and vacated demand of Rs. 4,00,356/-.
3. The party filed the appeal but the same stood rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh vide his Order dt. 13.6.2000 confirming the order passed by the Original Authority.
4. The present appeal is against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals). the matter is listed today for hearing the Stay Petition filed by the appellants. I have heard Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate for the appellants and Shri J. Singh, JDR for the respondents. The ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that they had availed the modvat credit of the impugned amount strictly as per the duty amount reflected in the invoices issued by the depots of the M/s. SAIL as could be seen from the contents of the show cause notice. It is contended that no specific ground has been given in it for denying the modvat credit. It only states that modvat credit has been availed on the strength of the invoice issued in violation of the Notfn. No. 33/94-CE (NT). It is further submitted that the Order-in-Original is even less reflective. It is further contended that even at this stage, the appellants are not clear as to on what precise grounds they have been asked to pay the impugned amount and therefore, the order passed by the original authority is not sustainable in law.
5. I have considered the submissions made before me during the course of hearing of this case, even the departmental side was not able to figure out the reason either form the show cause notice or from the Order-in-Original, on which the modvat credit has been denied to the appellants. The Original Authority in her order has only recorded the following findings:
"I observe that the quantity and duty passed on by the supplier of goods to the party is higher than the quantity and duty paid by the manufacturer. Thus these invoices do nt appear to be genuine and cannot be considered as valid document for availing modvat credit under Rule 57-G of the Rules. Hence credit of Rs. 4,58,579/- so taken is not allowable to the party".
6. Even otherwise also, if the invoices issued by the depots of M/s. SAIL were not considered as genuine documents for availing the modvat credit under Rule 57-G, the (SIC) issuing dealer should have also been made a party to the present proceedings. In view of these findings, therefore, prima facie, the order passed by the Original Authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not found speaking and therefore not sustainable in law. In view of this, the appellants are granted waiver of the pre-deposit of the impugned amount and its recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal.
7. The matter shall be posted for final disposal in its own turn.
(Announced and dictated in the Court)