Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Madhusudan Industries Ltd vs C.C.E., Ahmedabad Iii on 16 January, 2017
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, O-20, NMH Compound Ahmedabad Central Excise Appeal No.844 of 2006 Arising out of the order-in-original No.29/Commr/2005 dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad Madhusudan Industries Ltd. .. Appellant Vs. C.C.E., Ahmedabad III .. Respondent
Appearance:
Present Shri Paritosh Gupta for the appellant Present Shri J. Nagori, A.R. for the Respondent-Revenue Coram: Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) Date of hearing/decision: 16.1.2017 Final Order No. Per Dr. D.M. Misra:
This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Original No. 29/Commr/2005 dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad III.
2. After hearing both sides for some time, we find that the issue relates to clearance of Vanaspati, both branded and unbranded, after introduction of levy of duty with effect from 01.3.2003. The appellant had disclosed the goods lying in their factory premises on the budget day i.e. 28.2.2003. It was the allegation of the Department that after imposition of levy with effect from 01.3.2003, the appellant had cleared branded Vanaspati in the guise of unbranded one, which attracted nil rate of duty. In support of the allegation, the Revenue relied upon the statements of customers, who have purchased and also the Transporter. The ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that 95% of the purchasers whose statements were recorded by the Department informed that they purchased unbranded goods from the appellant attracting nil rate of duty. The customers who stated before the authorities that they have purchased the goods at nil rate of duty being unbranded ones, later filed affidavit denying the said fact. While looking into the records we find that the panchanamas, statements by the appellant are illegible and some of the statements are in vernacular language(Gujarati) and not translated ones leading to difficulty in considering the grounds raised in assailing the impugned order. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue also submits that for ascertaining the correctness of the claim made by the appellant, it is necessary to scrutinize the statements, panchanama and all other relevant documents, namely, transporter challans, invoices etc. which we find are not readable. Since the matter is of 2006, we do not see any reason to keep the appeal pending. In the circumstances, we do not find any alterative , but to dismiss the appeal as non-maintainable. However, the appellant is at liberty to revive their appeal after fling legible copies of the documents, translated statements legible copies of the transporters challans, invoices etc. within a reasonable period of time, as per law.
4. The appeal is dismissed.
(Ashok K. Arya) (Dr. D.M. Misra)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial
scd/
Appeal No.E/844/2006
1