Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Nipha Steels Ltd vs Cce-Kol-Iv on 17 August, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Appeal No. E/75372/14
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.46/Denovo/Commissioner/CE/Kol-IV/2013 dated 30.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE SHRI H.K.THAKUR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT
(Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any
Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities?
M/s.Nipha Steels Ltd.
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
CCE-KOL-IV
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri S.P.Siddhanta, Consultant for the Appellant Shri S.Mukhopadhyay, Supdt.(AR) for the Revenue CORAM:
Honble Shri H.K.Thakur, Member(Technical) Date of Hearing/Decision :- 17.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement :- 17.08.2016 ORDER NO.FO/A/75831/2016 Per Shri H.K.Thakur.
This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant against Order-in-Original No.46/Denovo/Commissioner/CE/Kol-IV/2013 dated 30.12.2013 passed by the Adjudicating authority under which a demand of Rs.24,48,179.45 (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Nine & Forty Five Paisa only) has been confirmed against the Appellant, under Rule 57I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with proviso to Section 11A(1) 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with a penalty of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakh only) imposed upon the Appellant under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Shri S.P.Siddhanta (Consultant) appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the issue involved in the present proceedings is disallowing of Modvat Credit on various inputs used by the Appellant in the manufacture of their finished goods. That the demand was mainly raised for not fulfilling the procedural requirements. 2.1 Ld.Consultant argued that this is the second round of litigation and earlier the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating authority by this Bench as per Order No.S-363, A-701/Cal/98 dated 10.07.1998 by passing following observations :-
As the matter has been going on for a number of years, we direct the applicants to approach their department for supply of the copies of the relied upon documents to the show cause notice immediately on receipt of this Order. The department thereafter would supply the relevant documents within a period of 1 month. Applicants would file reply thereafter within a period of 1 month. And the collector shall adjudicate the matter as fast as possible. 2.2 Ld.Consultant submitted that no documents were supplied to the Appellant as directed by this Bench and the same directions given by CESTAT were taken before the Adjudicating authority during personal hearing.
2.3 Ld.Consultant also argued that extended period is not invocable as all the credit taking document copies were provided to the department and that the entire demand is time barred.
3. Shri S.Mukhopadhyay, Supdt.(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue made the Bench go through para 5.3 of the Order-in-Original dated 30.12.2013 passed by the Adjudicating authority to argue that all the relied upon documents were given to the Appellant along with the show cause notice, therefore, there was no need of supplying the same to the Appellant again. He relied upon the case law of Union of India v. Lampo Computers (P) Ltd. [2014 (305) ELT 215 (Kar.)].
4. Heard both sides and perused the case records.
5. It is observed that by passing Order dated 10.07.1998 in the same proceedings earlier this Bench noted the argument of the Appellant that a fire broke in their Office on 31.12.1994 and all the documents were destroyed in the fire. It was also submitted by the Appellant before this Bench on 10.07.1998 that copies of documents relied upon in the show cause notice were not served upon the Appellant along with the show cause notice. The arguments made by the Appellant were accepted by this Bench and department was directed under Order dated 10.07.1998 to supply copies of all relied upon documents and adjudication to be completed within a time bound manner. If Order dated 10.07.1998 passed by this Bench was not acceptable to the Revenue then the same could have been appealed against. Adjudicating authority was not correct in making his observations in para 5.3 of Order-in-Original dated 30.12.2013, after more than fifteen years of the Order dated 10.07.1998 passed by this Bench, that the relied upon documents need not be provided again to the Appellant in spite of specific order passed by this Bench.
6. In the absence of supply of the documents, Appeal filed by the Appellant is required to be allowed for not complying with the Order dated 10.07.1998 and for not fulfilling the principles of natural justice. Bench has not gone into the other aspects of time bar and merits of the case.
7. In view of the above Appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed.
(Operative part of the order was pronounced in the open court.) SD/ (H.K.THAKUR) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) sm 4 Appeal No.E/75372/14