Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Smm Steel Re-Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. (Appeals) on 14 December, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(108)ECC18, 2006ECR18(TRI.-BANGALORE), 2007(210)ELT714(TRI-BANG)
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. Both these appeals raise a common question of law and facts and hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law. The appeal of M/s. SMM Steel Re-rolling Mills (P) Ltd. arises from the OIA No. 107/2005 dated 12-9-2005 by which the demand of duty of Rs. 29,972/- and like sum of penalty has been confirmed while the appeal of M/s. Paragon Steels (P) Ltd. arises from OIA No. 104/2005-CE dated 9-9-2005 by which the demand of duty of Rs. 37,174/-and like sum of penalty has been confirmed. The appellants are manufacturers of MS Ingots. They were captively using "Steel Formers". The Revenue had taken a view that the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 is not available to this item and had raised demands invoking larger period. The period involved in both the matters is 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. The appellants are not present despite notice. Hence, the appeals are taken up together for disposal as per law, as the issue lies in a short compass.
2. The Counsel's submission at the time of hearing of the Stay application was that the demands are barred by time for the reason that they were availing Modvat credit for earlier period and the department had full knowledge of the appellants utilizing such Steel Formers captively in the manufacture of the final products. They had also filed relevant declarations. Therefore, if was pleaded that the larger period was not invokable. The Counsel also relied on the Apex Court ruling rendered in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. CCE, Madras 1994 (74) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) to seek the benefit of time bar. These arguments are taken into consideration for disposal of these appeals.
3. The learned JDR took me through the findings recorded by both the authorities on this aspect of the matter and prayed for confirming the demands, as duty was leviable on Steel Formers and invocation of larger period is justifiable.
4. I have considered the submissions. The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted in the orders about the plea of time bar. He has also noted the fact of relevant declarations having been filed by the appellants to avail the Modvat credit in respect of HR Sheets captively used in the manufacture of Steel Formers. The details of purchase of HR Sheets were also entered in the statutory RG 23C Register-Part I & II and credit was availed for these facts have been clearly noted by the Commissioner (Appeals) also in the impugned order. In view of the facts having been known to the Department, the demands for larger period is clearly time barred. The authorities have taken a plea in their findings that the appellants have suppressed the facts and hence larger period is invokable. However, the fact of the appellant having utilized the input HR Sheets for manufacture of the product viz. "Steel Formers" was well declared and entered in the statutory books. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a deliberate evasion of duty on this product. The department should have taken steps to recover the amounts in terms of the declarations already made well in time. In view of the Apex Court judgment cited by the appellant, the demands are clearly time barred. On this plea itself, the Stay Order Nos. 735 & 736/2006 dated 19-7-2006 was passed granting full waiver and staying the recovery. As the demands are barred by time, the same cannot be confirmed. The impugned orders are set aside and appeals allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)