Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 6 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(150)ELT210(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member
1. Appellants vide letter dated 22.8.2000 made a request to decide the appeal on merit. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of the appellants.
2. The appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable product and availing the benefit of MODVAT credit. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for disallowing the credit of Rs.6,394/- on the ground that the dealer who issued the invoices, have not revalidated their registration certificate, hence violate the Trade Notice No.10/95 dated 21.2.95 issued by the Bombay Collectorate. The demand was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellants field appeal and the same was rejected.
4. Heard learned SDR and perused the appeal papers. In this case a show cause notice was issued on the ground that dealer, who issued the invoices have violated the provisions of Trade Notice No.10/95 dated 21.2.95 passed by the Bombay Collectorate. Copy of Trade notice was not supplied to the appellants and the appellants made a request to Revenue for supply of copy of the Trade Notice. In response to their letter, the Supdt of Central Excise vide letter dated 22.3.96 informed the appellants that Trade Notice No.10/95 dated 21.2.95 of Bombay Collectorate is not available. The appellants again applied before the Assistant Commissioner for supply of the copy of the Trade notice and the same was not supplied to them. The Assistant Commissioner while denying the credit (SIC) upon the Trade Notice issued by Bombay Collectorate and the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order also after relying on that Trade Notice, dismiss the appeal, however, a copy of Trade notice was not supplied to the appellants. Further, if, as per the letter dated 22.3.96 issued by the Supdt. of Central Excise to the appellant, the copy of Trade Notice was not available in the office of Revenue at Allahabad, it is strange, how, the Assistant Commissioner without going through the provisions of Trade Notice issued the demand.
5. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.