Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Shabana Steels Pvt. Ltd., Afzali I. ... vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 17 August, 2001
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The stay order earlier passed by the Tribunal having been set aside by the order of the High Court. We have heard the parties.
2. Two sets of orders were passed in adjudication on an identical issue, whether modvat credit could be availed of by persons on the basis of documents endorsed by dealers of scrap. The notices alleged that the material which was received was not covered by gate passes showing payment of duty. The Deputy Commissioner who adjudicated some of the notices in which the duty was less then Rs. 10 lakhs, confirmed the demand. On appeal from these orders, the Commissioner (Appeals) found for the appellant on limitation and set aside the Deputy Commissioner's orders. The Tribunal declined to consider the prayer made by the department for stay of operation of the Commissioner (Appeal)'s order.
3. Another set of notices, where the duty involved exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs, was adjudicated by the Commissioner, who found that the department had a case on merits as well as on limitation. In the stay application which was filed in the appeals against these order, the Tribunal had ordered deposit. It is these orders that have been set aside by the High Court.
4. The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that, the Tribunal having found no ground for interference on limitation with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order on an issue which was identical, it could not find a prima facie case against other persons, appears to us to be sound. The departmental representative does not say that any appeal has been filed against the Tribunal's order refusing to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, nor does he contend that the issues are different in both sets of cases. That being the case, we think it proper to waive deposit of the duty demanded and penalties imposed and stay their recovery.