Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Shree Gobbinddeo Glass Works Ltd. vs Cce, Kolkata-Ii on 1 May, 2001
ORDER
Smt. Archana Wadhwa.
1. After dispensing with the condition of predeposit of duty amount of Rs.76,358.16 and penalty amount of Rs.500/- I take up the appeal itself for disposal.
2. The short ground on the basis of which modvat credit of Rs.76,358.16 has been disallowed to the appellant is that they have received the goods under the cover of invoices issued by M/s. Abdos Trading Co.Pvt.Ltd. The said company is a regd.dealer under the Central Excise law. The invoice issued by them show their registration numbers as also gives all other particulars as regards duty payment on the inputs in question. RG-23D s1.no. has also been reflected in the said invoices. The modvat credit has been disallowed by observing that though the said dealer is regd., but the godown from where the goods have been despatched is not regd. Godown. The above finding of the authorities below have been strongly challenged by the appellants by submitting that the invoices in question show the registration number of M/s. Abdos Trading Co.Pvt.Ltd. in respect of Belgachia Rd. godown from where the goods have been received by the appellant. All the particulars have been shown in the invoices. As such there was no justification for the authorities below to deny the benefit of the modvat credit.
3. It has also been contended before me that the show cause notice did not allege non-registration of Belgachia Rd. godown of their supplier. I have seen the show cause notice. The allegations made therein are only to the effect that the invoice in question on being examined by the concerned superintendent was found to be inadmissible document. No reasoning has been given in the show cause notice as to why the invoice in question should be treated as inadmissible document, thus not giving any opportunity to the appellant to defend themselves properly. Such halfhearted exercise in drafting the show cause notice without disclosing the exact allegation is not appreciated. It is only in the order passed by the Asstt. Commissioner that the findings of Belgachia godown not being registered with Central Excise were made for the first time, thus depriviong the assessee of their valuable rights to defend themselves. I also find that the findings of the Asstt. Commissioner that no RG-23D register is maintained at the Belgachia godown are contrary to the factual position inasmuch as the invoice in question show RG-23D number and also gives the registration numbers. The adjudicating authority has not verified all these factual positions with regard to the evidences on record. In these circumstances I find that the orders passed by the authorities below are not legal and factually correct. The same are accordingly set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
Dictated in the court.