Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 6 July, 2001
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. On hearing both sides on the stay application, the main appeal itself was taken up for disposal after granting waiver of duty of Rs. 67, 90,646/-.
2. The appellants manufacture excisable products utilising the modvat credit facility both under Rules 57A and 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. The common allegation was that certain goods imported under the project import regulations were covered under Rule 57A instead of under Rule 57Q. It was also alleged that the capital goods were not installed in the factory but were cleared on being worked upon to their customers. After hearing the assessees, the Dy. Commissioner passed single order confirming the duty as above, after permitting utilisation of credit of Rs. 4, 54,60,347/-. In this order the Dy. Commissioner had mentioned that the assessees were heard on 5.5.2000 at 3.30 PM. In making the order. Officer on 8.6.2000. In this report apparently the Range Officer stated that he was unable to determine whether the goods on which credit was taken were raw materials or capital goods since there was such doubt the extent of credit extended was 75%. Not satisfied with this order, the assessees filed a appeal. Before the Commissioner the assessees stated that when all the documents were available the Range Officer could not say that due to lack of availability of the documents, he was unable to determine the nature of the inputs. The Commissioner however, without going into this aspect upheld the lower order. Hence the appeal.
3. On behalf of the appellants a very strong claim is made of denial of natural justice. The Ld. Dy. Commissioner had placed heavy reliance on a report filed before him nearly one month after the assessees were heard. It has been the claim of the assessees before the Commissioner (Appeals) and also before us that if they had been shown the report they would have been in a position to settle all the doubts of the Range Officer and show the exact nature of the goods covered under each eligible document. It is claimed that the failure of the Dy. Commissioner to disclose the inquiry and his act or placing reliance upon the same behind of their backs has rendered his order bad in law.
4. On perusal of the documents we find it to be so. We therefore allow the appeal and remand the proceedings back to the Jurisdictional Dy Commissioner for the limited purpose of re-determination of the denial of credit of Rs. 67,90,646/- in adjudication denovo. He shall first supply a copy of the Range Officer's report cited in the proceedings to the assessees. The assessees shall place on record their comments on the report and also place their statements showing exact identity of the goods covered. The Dy. Commissioner shall give adequate notice and shall pass appropriate orders after hearing the assessees.