Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
M/S. Chennai Rerollers vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 29 May, 2001
ORDER Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T)
1. This appeal along with Stay petition arises out of the Order-in-Appeal No.24/2000 (M.II) dt. 31.1.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai.
2. Appearing on behalf of the Appellants, the Ld. Counsel submits that the Appellants had informed the Assistant Commissioner vide their letter dt. 27.8.98 since they were unable to run the industry because of recession and various other factors, they closed their industry; that the Appellants have paid monthly Rs. 12,063/- towards excise duty per month till August 1998 without any default; that they had informed the TNEB about the closure of their unit with effect from 31.7.98 and they have been paying monthly duty amount of Rs. 12,603/- from the month of September, 98 onwards. This letter dt. 27.8.98 was also enclosed. The Ld. Counsel has also pointed out that the demand has been issued for the period covering even four days after the date of issue of show cause notice which is not sustainable. The Ld. Counsel has also relied on the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Panem Castings Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE., reported in 2000 (126) ELT 636 (T) wherein the delay of sending the notice of closure of a factory was condoned. The factory was closed on 31.7.98 and they have had given intimation on 29.8.98. In view of the above submissions the Ld. Counsel has prayed that the delay be condoned and the matter be allowed abatement of duty for the period when the unit was closed.
3. Appearing for the Revenue the Ld. DR reiterates the department findings in the appeal memorandum.
4. Heard both sides. We are of the considered opinion that the duty demanded for the period covering four days which were after the date of issue of show cause notice was not sustainable and the abatement of duty for the period when the factory was closed also requires to be abated in the light of the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Panem Castings P. Ltd. vs. CCE (Supra). Therefore, while allowing the stay application, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority for de novo consideration with the direction to consider all the material evidence produced by the appellants and the decision of the Tribunal shall be taken into consideration and the period of dispute alone is to be taken up for consideration and not the period (sic) 4 days after the date of issue of the show cause notice. The Appellants are required to be heard in person after following the principles of natural justice before passing a speaking order in this case. Thus the appeal is allowed by way of remand.