Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
M/S. Mohan Dye Chem Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 22 June, 2001
ORDER G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)
1. The matter came up earlier part of the day when it was found that the appellant was absent and was adjourned.When the proceedings of the day were going on, the representative of the appellant states that by mistake he was sitting in Technical Officer's room.Therefore the appeal was taken up.The issue involved in whether the firm which is having a turnover of less than Rs.30 lakhs, it is obligatory on their part to prepare and maintain the statutory records? The appellant brings before me Trade Notice No.35/94 dated 25.3.1994 issued by the Vadodara Collectorate wherein it has been specifically stated -- "doubts have been expressed as to whether it would be possible for the small units to maintain excise record and comply with the procedural formalities." In the said notice it is further stated -- "no separate accounts are to be maintained by the SSI units for excise purpose, private records showing date-wise proforma sales bills, copy of invoice adequate for excises purpose also." It is admitted before the that they were maintaining private records in terms of the said trade notice.The Assistant Commissioner in the order-in-original states that he came to the conclusion that the submission of the assessee is correct to some extent.Having held the same I feel the imposition of penalty under the circumstances is not called for. There is failure on the part of the lower authorities to follow the spirit of said Trade Notice which is binding on them.I therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.The stay petition stands disposed of.
(Dictated in Court)