Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Vijay Ispat Alloys (P) Ltd. vs Cce, Kanpur on 9 May, 2001
ORDER
P.S. Bajaj
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order in original dated 27.1.2000 of the Commissioner. the issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled to the abatement of duty for the closing period 28.5.98 to 10.3.99. The learned Commissioner had disallowed the abatement for this period to the appellants mainly on the ground that they failed to provide the meter reading and the stock position on the date of closure.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that intimation regarding the closure of the unit was given vide letter dated 27.5.98 and on the very next dated i.e. 28.5.98 the stock position was also intimated to the competent authority by the appellants. Regarding the non-supply of the meter reading, the counsel has submitted that it was intimated to the Commissioner in both the letters dated 27.5.98 and 28.5.98 that the meter was under the seal of the UPSEB. Therefore, the Commissioner has wrongly disallowed the abatement for the disputed period.
3. The learned SDR, on the other hand, has contended that for want of the meter reading and the proper intimation regarding the date of closure of the unit, stock position on the date of close and date of reopening of the unit, the Commissioner has rightly disallowed the abatement.
4. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record.
5. Thee bare perusal of the record shows that the appellants vide letter 27.5.98 intimated to the Commissioner that due UPSEB power they had decide to close down their factory w.e.f. midnight of 27th/28th May, 1998 for indefinite period. Similarly, letter dated 28.5.98 reveals that the appellants furnished the details of the stock lying with them at the time of closure of the factory. The receipt of both the letters had not been disputed by the Commissioner in the impugned order. Therefore, to say that an intimation regarding the closure of the factory and the stock position was not furnished by the appellants would be factually incorrect.
6. The perusal of the letter dated 28.5.98 of the appellants referred to above further shows that they intimated that due to the sealing of the meter room by the UPSEB they could not furnish the meter reading. If Commissioner was not satisfied with this intimation of the appellants, he could get the same verified from the office of the UPSEB by deputing an official. he could also get the meter reading on he date of seal of the meter room from that office. But it appears that he did not do so and hastened to disallow the abatement claim of the appellants on the ground that the meter reading was not supplied. Regarding re-start of the factory, the appellants even sent the letter dated 10.3.99 to the Assistant Commissioner and the receipt of the letter had also been not denied in the impugned order by the Commissioner. The genuineness of this letter could also be got verified by the Commissioner at his won end though is own officers. He could easily get it verified whether the factory was started on that date or at an earlier dated by the appellants or not, but this too was not done by him.
7. The contention of the learned SUR that under Rule 96ZO (2) the abatement for the disputed period was not permissible even otherwise cannot be entertained by us at this stage as that was not taken up before the Commissioner by the Revenue.
8. The Tribunal in similar circumstances in the case of Shivansi Ferrous (P) Ld. Vs. CCE Kanpur 2001(127) ELT (Tribunal) had remanded the matter to the Commissioner for de novo consideration of the matter wherein he disallowed the abatement on the ground of non-supply of electric meter reading. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances referred to above and the ratio of the law laid down in that case, in our view the impugned order of the Commissioner cannot be legally sustained and deserves to be set aside. The matter deserves to be sent to the Commissioner for read judication afresh.
9. Consequently, the impugned order of the Commissioner is set aside and the matter is sent back to the Commissioner for fresh decision in accordance with law after after affording opportunity of hearing and of producting any more evidence, if they wished, to the appellants.
10. The appeal of the appellants, therefore, stands allowed by way of remand.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.