Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. P.S. Hunjan And Brothers vs C.C.E. Chandigarh on 29 December, 2000
ORDER
K. Sreedharan
1. This appeal and Stay Petition are posted today. On hearing the ld. Counsel representing the appellant and the ld. DR, I fell that the appeal itself can be disposed of without any order being passed in the Stay Petition.
2. Show Cause Notice dt. 28.2.96 was issued to the appellants requiring him to state why modvat credit availed on document No.s 500152 dt. 12.9.95 and 500218 dt. 25.9.95 amounting to a total sum of Rs. 10,884-00 should not be reversed. In reply to the Show Cause Notice, petitioner contends that those documents should be treated as documents falling under Rule 52-A of CE Rules, 1944 and modvat credit availed should not be reversed. This contention of the appellant was not accepted by the Adjudicating Authority by observing 'the plea of the noticee that it may be considered as under Rule 52A invoices, as they have been issued by the warehouses is not tenable, as the details required by 52A invoice viz., time of issuance, debit particulars, rate of duty in words and figures etc. are not contained in the invoices'. In view of this finding, the said authority confirmed the demand made in the Show cause notice. Aggrieved by the said order, appeal was taken up before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Chandigarh by Order-in-Appeal Nos. 147 to 150/DIR/P&PR/2000 dt. 13.6.2000 who dismissed the appeal. In the said order, he reiterated the stand taken by the Adjudicating Authority by observing 'I have carefully gone through the case records including submissions made by the appellants and observe that credit was availed on the invoices which do not contain the particulars such as debit particulars, rate of duty in words and figures as required under Rule 52A of CE Rules, 1944'.
3. Hence, this appeal. Documents mentioned in the Show cause notice are seen at pages 23 & 24 of the file. Ld. Departmental Representative was asked to peruse those documents and state whether they contain details regarding - time of issuance, debit particulars, rate of duty in words & figures etc. Which were found by the authorities as missing therefrom.
4. After going through the documents, ld. DR tried to support the conclusions reached by the Adjudicating Authority or Appellate Authority, but he finds that the third ground i.e., debit entry in PLA or RG 23 Part II was not given. He also submitted that whether these documents are original or duplicate?. Unfortunately, these tow grounds now brought out by the ld. DR did not find any favour by the Adjudicating Authority or Appellate Authority, It means that the grounds on which modvat credit was reversed by the Adjudicating Authority or Appellate Authority viz., Commissioner (Appeals) were non-existent. Had those authorities referred to invoices mentioned in the Show Cause notice, they would not have committed this patent mistake. The fresh ground now sought to be brought out by the ld. DR is not acceptable by this Tribunal at this juncture.
5. In view of what has been stated above, neither the Adjudicating Authority nor the Appellate Authority cared to look into the invoices mentioned in the Show cause notice while denying the modvat credit legally availed of by the appellant. This error or callous indifference, on the part of the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals), compelled the party to approach this Tribunal by filing this appeal. In such a situation, I am of the considered view that the appellant should be compensated by payment of cost. Appellant should get Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand) towards cost form the Department. After paying this amount, the Department may consider whether the said amount is to be realised from the adjudicating authority who passed the order or the Commissioner (Appeals) who confirmed the same.
6. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
(Pronounced and dictated in the Court)