Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
M/S. Priya Blue Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Cen. Excise, Rajkot on 9 April, 2001
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. On hearing Shri Maru, advocate for the applicants and Shri Chopra, DR for the Revenue, it appeared that the facts being clear, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done after granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.7,94,300/- and penalty of Rs.1,50,000/-
2. The appellants received capital goods on 3 occasions. In terms of Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, a declaration is required to be filed before the receipt of the goods and an intimation is required to be filed after the receipt of the goods. The original duty paying documents are also required to be filed for verification. In the instant case, the appellants received certain capital goods on 12.4.95, on 10.6.95 and on 6.7.95.In each case they filed the declaration subsequent to the receipt but within a fortnight thereof. In the first two instances, they filed application for condonation of the delay on 26.6.95.Shri Maru ld. counsel is not clear whether in the third instance any such application was filed. The second proviso to Rule 57T (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 permitted the Asstt. Commissioner to condone the delay on sufficient cause being shown. Circular NO. 181/15-96-CX dated 7.3.1996 issued by the Ministry of Finance directs the officers not to deny credit on the ground of late declaration. In the fact of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the declaration Show cause notice was issued on 1.12.95 seeking denial of the credit taken on the ground of late declaration and also on the ground that duplicate copies of the duty paying documents had not been submitted. The Asstt. Commissioner confirmed the denial. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals)upheld the denial resulting in the present appeal. In his order, the Collector (Appeals) had observed that the reasons for the delay had not been placed on record before the Asstt. Commissioner. In the absence of any order made by the Asstt. Commissioner on the application seeking condonation, this observation of the Commissioner is unwarranted and is in the excess of the issue before him for decision. I observe that in the face of the application seeking condonation, there was no reason for issue of the show cause notice. The Asstt. Commissioner was wrong in adjudicating the case without giving his mind on the application for condonation. On the perusal of the Board's instruction. it would appear that in each case, he was required to condone the delay.
3. Shri Maru then says that the original copies of the duty paying documents were submitted to the Range officers and they are still with the Range Officers.
4. In view of the specific submission, this appeal is allowed and the proceedings are remitted to the Jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner. He shall examine the original duty paying document. He shall also condone the delay in filing of the declaration where the applications have been made and then pass a speaking order.
(Dictated in Court)