Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Modern Syntex (India) Ltd. on 23 June, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(112)ELT714(TRI-DEL)
ORDER S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. These 4 appeals are based on common facts and question of law. Therefore, are being taken up for hearing together.
2. Revenue filed these appeals against the orders-in-original passed by he Commissioner of Central Excise where the benefit of Notification No. 3/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987 and Notification No. 53/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991 vas allowed to the respondents.
The brief facts of the case are that respondents are manufacturer of yarn and they cleared the yarn under Notification No. 53/87-C.E. and 53/91-C.E. to various registered Handloom Cooperative Societies. Show cause notices were issued to the respondents alleging that they had received the payment in respect of the yarn cleared under Notification No. 53/87-C.E. and 53/91-C.E. by the manner other than the Cheques drawn on the account of such Societies. The adjudicating authority vide impugned order dropped the proceedings. Learned SDR Shri A.K. Agarwal appearing on behalf of the Revenue and submits that the respondents had violated the conditions of the notification by receiving a payment by the manner other than the Cheques as provided under he notification. He submits that the condition of the notifications its that the payment is to be received by the manufacturer by Cheques drawn by the Handloom Co-operative Societies on its own Bank account. He, therefore, trays that the appeal be allowed. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in the impugned order, there is a specific finding that he Draft orders were prepared by the Bank on the basis of the Cheques drawn by the Societies on their own account. He submits that this finding is not challenged by the Revenue. He, further relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Bhubaneswar v. Aska Spinning Mills, reported in 1999 (106) E.L.T. 418 (Tribunal) and in the case of Baripada Spg. Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 687 (Tribunal). He submits that in these cases the Tribunal held that the Bank draft for the purchase of goods against the Cheques drawn on its own Bank account is substantial fulfilment of the conditions of Notification No. 53/91-C.E. He, therefore, prays that the appeals be dismissed.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The Revenue filed these appeals only on the ground that the respondents received the payment by way of Bank Draft or Pay orders and the notification provides that the payment should be received through Cheques drawn by the Co-operative Societies on its own account. The contention of the respondents is that the Bank Pay orders which were prepared by the Bank were on the basis of the Cheques drawn by the Societies on its own account and this fact was duly noticed in the impugned order and not contrary evidence was produced by the Revenue before us. The Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Bhubaneswar v. Aska Spinning Mills (supra) held that Bank Draft for the purchase of goods against the Cheques drawn on its own Bank account is substantial fulfilment of the conditions of these notifications.
6. In view of the specific plea taken by the respondents which was noticed by the adjudicating authority that the pay order/draft were prepared on the basis of Cheques drawn by the Societies on its own account and in view of the above decisions of the Tribunal, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. The appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.