Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Bhavshakti Steel Mines Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nashik on 13 June, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPLICATION Nos. E/S/1028, 1029, 1030, 1221, 1222, 1223/11 APPEAL Nos. E/906, 907, 908, 1062, 1063, 1064/11 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AKP/40 to 45/NSK/2011 dated 28.2.2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nashik) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President and Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Bhavshakti Steel Mines Pvt. Ltd. Appellant C.P. Jindal Mohammad Hood Khan Parmeshwari Steels Kedarnath Dubey Pramod Singh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Respondent Appearance: Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate, for appellant Shri V.K. Singh, Additional Commissioner (AR), for respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President and Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: Date of Decision: ORDER NO Per: S.S. Kang Heard both sides.
2. The applicant, M/s. Bhavshakti Steel Mines Pvt. Ltd., filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.26,98,552/-, interest and penalty. The other applicants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties.
3. The demand is confirmed after denying credit. The applicants are engaged in the manufacture of MS ingots, and MS scrap is the raw material for the manufacture of finished goods. The applicants were availing credit in respect of MS scrap. During investigation it was found that the applicants were procuring bazar scrap from the local market through Shri Kakkubhai and also arranging duty paying documents from the registered dealer such as M/s. Parmeshwari Steels and M/s. Indian Steel Co. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties.
4. The applicants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the applicants to deposit whole of the duty and part of the penalties for hearing of the appeals. The applicants failed to comply with the conditions of the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), hence the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.
5. The contention of the applicants is that the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements were relied upon were not allowed by the adjudicating authority. In reply, the Revenue relied upon the statement of Shri C.P. Jindal, Director and Authorised Signatory of the applicant, where he admitted that the applicants were arranging bazar scrap and to cover up the same, also arranging duty paid invoices from the registered dealer.
6. During argument, the learned counsel, on instructions, made offer to deposit 25% of the duty for hearing of the appeals.
7. We have gone through the statement of Shri C.P. Jindal, Authorised Signatory, where he stated that in some cases, the applicants availed credit on the bazar scrap under the cover of invoices procured from M/s. Parmeshwari Steels and M/s. Indian Steel Co. In these circumstances, the offer made by the applicant is sufficient for hearing of the appeals. In view of the above, the applicant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.6.75 lakhs within a period of eight weeks. On deposit of the above mentioned amount, the pre-deposit of the remaining dues is waived.
8. As noted above, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merits, hence the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeals on merits, on showing the deposit of the above mentioned amount, and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The appeals are disposed of by way of remand.
(Dictated in Court) (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President tvu 1 4