Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Budhewal Co-Op. Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex., Chandigarh-I on 16 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(80)ECC343, 2002(141)ELT490(TRI-DEL)
ORDER P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 11-5-2001 of the Commissioner (appeals) vide which he had affirmed the order-in-original, dated 27-7-99 of the Additional Commissioner confirming the duty demand of Rs. 1,74,332/- with equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act and also directing the payment of interest at the rate of 20% in terms of Section 11AB.
2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar. On the scrutiny of the record of the appellants, internal audit party found that during the period 4/96 to 6/98, they had not paid the excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,09,109/- on the sale of M.S. scrap generated in their workshop. They were issued show cause notice accordingly. In reply to the show cause notice, they averred that workshop was being used by them for the maintenance and for repair of plant and that no scrap was generated there. The Additional Commissioner who adjudicated the show cause notice, did not accept their version in toto. tie, however, dropped the demand of Rs. 34,777/- but confirmed demand of Rs. 1,74,332/- under Section 11A along with equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC on them and also directed them to pay interest at the rate of 20%. This order of the Additional Commissioner had been confirmed by the Commissioner (appeals).
3. None has come present for the appellants today. The Counsel has sent written submissions and also prayed for an adjournment. We do not find any sufficient ground to allow adjournment. We have gone through the written submissions and heard SDK. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal of the appellants.
4. The bare perusal of the impugned order shows that duty demand for the period 4/96 to 6/98 had been confirmed against the Appellants on account of sale of M.S. scrap generated in their workshop without discharging the duty liability. The plea of the appellants that no scrap was generated in the workshop which was being used by them only for maintenance of the plant, had been considered not only by the adjudicating authority but also by the appellate authority i.e. Commissioner (appeals). They, no doubt, also produced certain photographs before the Commissioner (appeals) to prove that old parts of the machinery after replacement, were sold. But this aspect of the matter had also been considered by the Commissioner (appeals) in details. We also find that duty demand in respect of sale of old parts by them, had not been confirmed against them. The adjudicating authority, by taking into into consideration this plea of the appellants, reduced the demand from Rs. 2,09,109/- as raised in the show cause notice, to Rs. 1,74,332/- and this demand pertains to the sale of scrap by them.
5. The ratio of law laid down in A.C.C. Limited v. C.C.E., Bhapal -2001 (133) E.L.T. 375, referred to by the Counsel in the written submissions, is not attracted to the facts of the case. In that case, it has been observed by the Tribunal that scrap generated by dismantling of used machinery is not excisable and no duty demand in respect of such scrap is maintainable. But in the case in hand, as observed above, the duty demand has been affirmed only in respect of the scrap generated in the workshop of the appellants and cleared by them without payment of duty. No duty has been demanded in respect of sale of old parts of the machinery or scrap allegedly generated by dismantling of used machinery.
6. The Commissioner (appeals) had recorded the detailed reasons while affirming the order-in-original of the Additional Commissioner. We do not find any sufficient ground to disagree with his findings and as such, the impugned rendered by him is upheld.
7. Consequently, the appeal of the appellants being without merit is ordered to be dismissed.