Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Indore vs M/S M.G.M. Tools Pvt. Ltd on 14 October, 2009
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi COURT-III Date of hearing/decision: 14.10.2009 Excise Appeal No. 3147-3149 of 2006-SM & E/1977/06-SM [Arising out of order-in-Appeal No. IND-I/236 to 238/2006 dated 23.6.06 & IND-I/121/2006 dated 23.3.06 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Indore] For approval and signature: Honble Shri P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? CCE, Indore Appellant Vs. M/s M.G.M. Tools Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Shri S.N. Gadia, Director Shri Dilip Mehta, Director M/s Polymermann (Asia) Pvt. Ltd.
Appearance:
Appeared for the Appellant Shri S.K. Bhaskar, SDR Appeared for the Respondent- None Coram: Honble Shri P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Order No.___________________________ Per: P.K. Das:
Common issue is involved in these Appeals and therefore, all are being taken up together for disposal.
2. Heard ld. SDR on behalf of the Revenue. None appears on behalf of the Respondent. It is seen from the record that these matters were adjourned for several occasions, but none appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
3. After hearing ld. SDR and on perusal of the records, I find that the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 7,82,702/- in terms of Section 11D of Central Excise Act 1944 and also imposed penalties on the Respondents.
4. The ld. SDR submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties on all the Respondents without appreciation of the facts of the case. He also submits that the duty was set aside without considering the statement of the Respondents. In the grounds of Appeal filed by the Revenue, it is stated that Commissioner (Appeals) had not appreciated the fact that Shri Dilip Mehta Respondent No. 3 admitted in his statement dated 16.7.2001 & 18.7.2001 and stated that Respondent No. 1 had collected excise duty of Rs.7,82,702/- from M/s Polymermann Asia Pvt. Ltd., Nasik. It is also stated in the grounds of Appeal that the Respondents have not disputed the fact that they have issued fake invoices and collected money from M/s Polymermann (Asia) Pvt. Ltd., Nasik.
5. On perusal of the records, I find that the Respondents had not filed any objection against the grounds of Appeal of the Revenue. Hence, the grounds of Appeal taken by the Revenue are to be examined by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) are set aside. All the matters are remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide after considering the grounds of Appeal filed by the Revenue. Needless to mention that the Commissioner (Appeals) shall be given reasonable opportunity of hearing before deciding the matter. All the Appeals filed by Revenue are allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (P.K. DAS) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) RM