Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Shivansi Ferrous (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 23 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(127)ELT413(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Shivansi Ferrous (P) Ltd., the matter relates to the abatement in the payment of central excise duty when the unit was closed during the period 7-6-1998 to 2-7-1998. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur-I, had disallowed the abatement claim on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 96-ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The grounds for the rejection of the abatement claim had been given as under -
(i) The reading of the electricity meter had not been given when the production was stopped in the factory.
(ii) The meter reading and stock position at the time of restart of production had not been given.
(iii) The declaration as prescribed at the time of sending intimation that their factory had remained closed for a continuous period from the date ... to the subsequent date ... had not been given.
2. Shri Amit Awasthi, advocate, appearing for the appellants, submitted that in their case the electric meter was within an enclosure which had been sealed by the State Electricity Authorities and they could not get the reading made as the place was not accessable to them. He, however, submits that the appellants had submitted the necessary information from the State Electricity Authorities. As regards the stock position, it was his submission that it has been given although after the re-start of the production. He submitted that these are procedural lapses which were condonable and refers to Tribunal's decisions wherein in similar circumstances with similar facts the matters have been remanded to the jurisdictional authorities to verify the factum of closure by other collateral and related evidence to be produced by the manufacturers.
3. In reply, Shri K. Panchasaran, DR, submitted that the requirements of the Trade Notice had not been met and as these requirements were basic to the working of the scheme; the abatement claim for the period 7-6-1998 to 2-7-1998 has been rightly rejected by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur.
4. I find that in their written submissions dated 3-3-1999 at page 25 of the paper book addressed to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur, there is a reference to the party's intimation dated 7-6-1998 intimating the closure of their manufacturing activities sine die. The show cause notice was issued on 19-2-1999 and the defence reply was filed on 3-3-1999. In this communication addressed to the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jhansi, it has been stated that they are closing their furnace from 7-5-1998. The learned advocate submits that this is a typing mistake and their claim for abatement is not from 7-5-1998 but from 7-6-1998. This letter has been acknowledged by some excise official on 8-6-1998 and it has also been received in the Office of the Asstt. Commissioner as per stamp on 7-6-1998. I find that there is no discussion of this communication. As per the endorsement, a copy had also been endorsed to the Commissioner of Central Excise. It is also seen that there is also no discussion whether the unit was actually closed or had worked during this period. The appellants have pleaded that as their electric meter was not accessable to them, they could not supply the meter reading. This also needs verification.
5. The learned advocate also referred to the Tribunal's decision wherein on similar facts and in similar circumstances the matter had been remanded to the jurisdictional authorities for re-consideration of the abatement claim for the period during which the unit actually remained closed. The learned advocate had referred to the following decisions -
(i) Raj Ratan Castings (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur, A. No. E/1457/99-NB, Final Order No. A/214/2000-NB(SM);
(ii) Shatabdi Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur, A. No. E/1432/99-NB(SM), Final Order No. A/968/2000-NB(SM); and (iii) Aishwarya Ispat (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur, 2000 (40) RLT 987 (CEGAT).
6. While I agree with the learned Commissioner of Central Excise that the matter cannot be decided on the basis of any certificate issued by the Electricity Department, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the collateral evidence including the certificate given by any Government Department could be taken into consideration for arriving at a Considered view in the matter.
7. In view of the above discussion, the matter is remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise who should provide an opportunity to the appellants to place such material as they consider necessary for dealing with the matter and then after following the principles of natural justice pass a speaking appealable order, as per law. At this stage, the learned advocate submits that the appellants have pre-deposited a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakh in terms of Tribunal's Stay Order. In view of the above, the matter may be decided at the earliest. With these observations, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.