Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Muneshwar Prasad, Shah Steel Corpn., ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 10 November, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(175)ELT742(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. The issues involved in these appeals are commons same are been disposed off by this order. Appellants in the appeal No. E/2422/02 is the manufacturer who during the period 1995-96 availed modvat credit on invoices sharing description of goods as coils. The credit was taken for the declared final products automobile components while sheets were admittedly received. The manufacturer has no facility to cut uncoil and/or to split the coil after such uncoiling. They place orders on various dealers, 12 in all, some of them are the other appellants herein. They placed orders for coils or coils cut to size that go to various uncoiler's/cutter's premises straight from the dealers. At the premises the slitters, coils are slit into sizes as specified by the manufacturer or as shown in the orders placed.
2. a) Rule 57J permitted such removal and availment of credit; but the said procedures thereunder was allegedly not followed. The credit of Rs. 8,13,331.95 and penalty under Rule 571 was imposed on the manufacturer.
b) Penalties in the other appeals herein were imposed on the various dealers under Rule 173Q(1)(bbb). These dealers have admitted to have supplied only coils and have not done the splitting. In case of of certain dealers even no statements were recorded and in others the charges for alleged slitting were not received from the dealers.
3. The issue is found to be squarely covered by two-member bench decision in the case of Dhimant Trading Co. and Ors. v. CCE, Mumbai {2003 (57) RLT 712} which is a decision on the other, same and similar set of cases. Infact some of the parties in this appeal were appellants in that case and/or other cases for example M/s. Suiti Exports Ltd. CEGAT Order No. C-II/1003/03 - WZB dated 08.05.2003.
a) Following these bindings decision on same set of facts under dispute, credit could be allowed to the appellants manufacturer in appeal No. E/24220, provided the correlation as submitted by Ld. Shri T. Gunasekaran appearing for him could be demonstrated before the proper officer. Only after such a correlation is demonstrated credit demand and/or penalties, if any, under Rule 57I for not following the provisions and procedures of Rule 57J could be considered on the manufacturer appellant herein.
b) As regards the dealers, in the other appeals today, no case is found for imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bbb), since there is no cause to entertain any doubt about the said dealers to have entered willfully wrong or incorrect particulars in the invoices issued by them for excisable goods with intent to facilitate the manufacturer to avail credit of duty. They have supplied coils and have mentioned coils on the documents. Penalty on the dealers is, therefore, set aside and appeals allowed.
4. The appeal of the manufacturer i.e. E/24220 is allowed as remand to the original authority to re-consider the correlation which Ld. Shri T. Gunasekaran submitted is available and could be made to demonstrate that no case credit of any kind has been availed and appeals of the dealers is allowed.
(Pronounced in Court)