Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Rajasthan Pigment & Chemicals vs C.C.E, Jaipur on 8 May, 2001
ORDER
S.S. Kang
1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of duty amounting to Rs. 61,107.28 and penalty of Rs. 5,000.00.
2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that allegation in the show cause notice was that the applicants availed the benefit of MODVAT Credit on the strength of improper invoices issued by the dealer. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, rejected the appeal filed by the applicants on the ground that the dealer cannot issue the invoice showing the higher rate of duty than the duty shown in the invoices issued by M.M.T.C. Ltd. he submits that before the Commissioner (Appeals), they took the specific plea that in respect of invoice number 16 dated 26.4.95, the excise duty paid in dealers' invoice was wrongly shown as Rs. 63,035.00 whereas the invoice issued by MMTC Ltd. shows Rs. 29,413.97. He submits that the applicants availed the benefit only in respect of duty shown in the invoice issued by MMTC Ltd. In respect of invoice no. 22 dated 1.5.95, the credit was denied only on the ground that the duty particulars were not shown in the invoice issued by the dealer. The invoice issued by the dealer also accompanied the invoice issued by MMTC Ltd. and the appellants availed the credit as per invoice issued by MMTC Ltd. In respect of invoice no. 23 dated 6.6.95, the appellants availed the credit of Rs. 113.76 in excess of the duty shown in the invoice issued by MMTC Ltd. He submits that all these points were raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals), without considering the points, dismissed the appeal. He, therefore, submits that application be allowed.
3. Heard ld. D.R., who reiterates the finding of the lower authorities.
4. The perusal of the appeal, filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), shows that the applicants had taken all the points now pleaded. The Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, has not given any finding on these aspects. Therefore, prima facie, it is a fit case for total waiver of duty and penalty. The pre-deposit of whole of duty and penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal. The appeal will come up in due course. (Dictated in Court).