Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs Rohit Dyeing And Finishing Works on 19 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(72)ECC626
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The appeal is against the Order of the Collector (Appeals) in which he has held that the adjudication by the Dy. Collector on a notice to show cause which alleged suppression of facts by an assessee was invalid and directed papers to be placed before the Collector for adjudication.
2. We do not consider it necessary to go into the grounds of appeal. The Dy. Collector's order which was appealed before the Collector.
3. The duty has been demanded on the ground that the inputs received by the applicant for the period from December 1989 to April 1993 were not lead scrap as claimed and therefore deemed Modvat credit was not available. The entire basis for the demand, as we can see at this stage, is the report of the test of the samples taken from the applicant's factory by the officers on 10.9.93. The samples were taken in the presence of watchman in the factory, who according to the panchnama, said that these goods were the raw materials. It is debatable whether the watchman was in a position to know the nature of the raw material, particularly when the factory has been closed four months earlier. Apart from this, it is strongly open to question whether the result of this test can be applied to goods received for five years previously by the applicant.
4. In the facts of this case, we consider it appropriate to ask the applicant to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs within two months from today. Thereupon we waive deposit of the remaining amount of duty and stay its recovery. Compliance on 16.10.2000.