Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
R.K.Y. Industries vs Collector Of Central Excise on 13 January, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(102)ELT158(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. R.K.Y. Industries, the order-in-original dated 11-9-1989 passed by the Addl. Collector, Central Excise, Chandigarh is under challenge. Shri J.P. Kaushik, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellants are agitating the grounds relating to the deductions from the Cum-Duty-Price. They are also aggrieved that the request for giving the Modvat credit had not been discussed by the Adjudicating Authority. He submitted that they are not raising the issues relating to the classification or the goods being manufactured through job workers etc. He referred to the observations of the Adjudicating Authority at page 5 of his order which are extracted below :
"The party though claimed that they got the wires and cables manufactured on job basis from Delhi but failed to produce any documentary evidence in this regard. Thus their version is not acceptable. The party vide their letter dated 11-5-1989 claimed certain deductions on account of freight and other associated charges and supplied few photostat copies and certificates by different agencies, but no connecting documents supporting their version with regard to actual payment of such freight/loading - unloading charges were made available to the Deptt. from where it could be ascertained as to how much amount was actually paid on account of these expenses. At the time of personal hearing on 27-4-1989 the advocate of the party submitted that they will file their claim in the respect in a week's time but the said party failed to substantiate their claim by producing documentary evidence. Thus, I am of the opinion that either the party has no documentary evidence in their possession to support their claim or they are not interested to put forward their case in order to get deduction on account of freight etc."
2. In reply, Shri D.S. Negi, SDR stated that the appellants had not supported their claim with documentary evidence and at this stage, no benefit could be given to the appellants.
3. Shri J.P. Kaushik, Advocate referred to the various decisions of the Tribunal both with regard to the recalculation of the duty liability and for extending the benefit of Modvat credit even when it had not been claimed at the stage of clearance. In particular, he referred to the following decisions:
(i) 1997 (19) RLT 66 (CEGAT-SB) - Collector of Central Excise v. Pawan Tyres (P) Ltd.
(ii) 1997 (22) RLT 768 - Vijay Prakash Industries v. C.C.E.
(iii) 1997 (23) RLT 850 - Honeyrex Products (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bangalore.
He pleaded that as the personal hearing was held on 27-4-1989 and they had filed documentary evidence for claiming deducti6ns from the price under communication dated 11-5-1989 which had been referred to by the Adjudicating Authority but not discussed the matter be remanded to the jurisdictional Adjudicating Authority.
4. Shri D.S. Negi, SDR while pleading that the documents did not support the case of the appellants, has no objection for remand on this limited issue.
5. We have carefully considered the matter. The appellants had not agitated the issues relating to classification and the issue relating to the goods being produced through job workers before us. The only issue for our consideration is the permissible deductions from the Cum-Duty-Price. The appellants had pleaded that the price at which the goods had been sold to the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and Punjab State Electricity Board were their final firm price. They were under impression that no duty was payable by them. They had further submitted that in case the duty liability is attracted, then the prices at which they had sold the wires and cables to the State Electricity Boards should be deemed to be the Cum-Duty-Price. The ld. Advocate had referred to the various decisions in this regard which are mentioned above.
6. We consider that the personal hearing in this case was held on 27-4-1989 and subsequently the appellants had filed their claim for deductions from the price under their letter dated 11-5-1989. While the adjudicating authority had taken congnizance of this letter dated 11-5-1989, he had rejected the contentions on the ground that no connecting documents supporting their version had been made available. We consider that in case of any doubt, the adjudicating authority should have given a fresh opportunity to the appellants for being heard.
7. With regard to the Modvat credit also, we find that the appellants had taken a specific plea in their letter dated 11-5-1989 at page 6. The ld. Advocate had referred to the Tribunal's decisions in this regard also. On this issue also, we find that the Adjudicating Authority had given no findings.
8. The law of valuation has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MRF Ltd. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.). We consider that in the interest of justice both on the question of valuation and the Modvat credit, this matter needs to be remanded back to the jurisdictional Adjudicating Authority who should re-examine these two aspects of the matter after giving an opportunity to the appellants of being heard and then pass an appealable speaking order as per law.
9. As no other points were raised by the appellants before us, the rest of the order is confirmed.
The appeal is disposed of by way of remand in the above terms. Ordered accordingly.