Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
M/S Gharda Chemicals Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 23 August, 2001
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The appellant had taken credit on the original copy of the invoice. The reason why the credit was so taken was not explained to the Asst. Commissioner. This is so recorded in his order. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the claim made was that the duty has been paid and the invoice could bear this claim. The Commissioner referred to the Asstt. Commissioner's observation. He held that the language of the rule was mandatory. In holding so he relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case of Premier Induction (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector [1996 (12) RLT 22 (T). On his upholding the lower order, the present appeal has been filed.
2. Shri Jagtap reiterates the contentions made in the appeal memorandum which were the same as were made before the Commissioner.
3. An identical issue was decided by the Tribunal in appeal No. E/1353/2001-Mum in the case of M/s. Godrej Sopas Ltd. (Order No. CI/2570-71/WZB/2001 dated 24.8.01). In that case the Tribunal had observed as under:-
"The same grounds as were raised before the Commissioner are pleaded before me. The subject rule made an exception provided the assessees undertook the simple task of proving that the duplicate copy of the invoice was lost in transit. They have not done this but have relied upon and have harped upon the duty paid nature of the goods. I find that the ld.Commissioner even doubted the duty paid character of the goods.
Where a legal responsibility is fixed upon a person to perform a function, and where the law provides an alternative solution where he is unable to discharge the initially placed burden, and where that person does not choose to avail of the alternative also, such person deprives himself of availment of the benefit."
4. The fact being identical, I follow the ratio of this judgment and dismiss the appeal.
(Dictated in Court)