Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Kakkar Complex Steels (P) Ltd. vs Collr. Of C. Ex. on 9 July, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(88)ELT168(TRI-DEL)
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. This stay application was argued by Shri B.N. Sharma, Consultant. Shri Y.R. Kilania, JDR appeared for the respondent/Revenue and he reiterated the contentions in the Original Order.
2. The appellants used "Hot-tops" and Refractory Bricks as inputs in their final products Steel Ingots. The Dy. Collectors denial of the benefit was up-held by the Collector (Appeals).
3. As regards the Refractories, Shri Sharma, ld. Consultant referred to the judgment of the Tribunal in the stay application filed by the Hindalco Industries Ltd. -1995 (80) E.L.T. 222 (Tribunal). In this case the Tribunal had stayed the recovery of the duty on the ground that the admissibility of Refractory was a contentious matter. Shri Sharma, ld. Consultant desired the benefit of the judgment and requested for un-conditional stay. He further submitted that the appellants had also made an alternate plea for acceptance of Refractory as inputs under Rule 57Q. The Assistant Collector had denied this plea on the ground that Credit had been taken before a declaration was filed under the Said Rule. He submitted that although the Collector had referred to this ground, he had not discussed the submissions of the appellants at all. He also submitted that the declaration could be filed within one month of taking the Credit and submitted that the power given to the Assistant Collector to condone the delay for a further period of two months. He submitted that the Assistant Collector should have exercised this power.
4. The ld. JDR submitted that the Tribunal in the case of R.D. Alloys -1991 (56) E.L.T. 798 (Tribunal) had dis-allowed Modvat Credit on "Hot-tops". Similarly in the case of Riapro Industries, it had been held that Modvat Credit was not admissible on fire bricks. He, therefore, opposed the stay application.
5. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides.
6. As regards the admissibility of "Hot-tops", I find that the Tribunal in their Stay Order Nos. S/501-503/95-NB, dated 12-9-1995 in the case of same appellant has considered the judgment of the R.D. Alloys but have still granted waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty confirmed. In the case of Refractory Bricks, the judgment in the case of Riapro Industries was passed during the pendency of the stay application cited by Shri Sharma, ld. Consultant. As regards the admissibility of the same under Rule 57A, I feel that this would be argued at the time of hearing of the main appeal. The credit involves Modvat on fire bricks amounting to Rs. 36,706/-.
7. On consideration of these submissions, I find while a prima facie case is made for "Hot-tops" the balance is against the appellants in the case of fire bricks. I therefore, direct the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as pre-deposit of duty within six weeks of the receipt of this order and report compliance. On such compliance being reported, there shall be waiver of the balance amount and stay of the operation of the impugned order.
8. The case is posted for reporting compliance on 23-8-1996.