Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Rajasthan Synthetic Industries ... vs C.C.E., Jaipur on 3 May, 2001
ORDER K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)
1. The appellants manufacture Plastic tapes and plastic fabrics falling under Chapter Sub-heading No. 39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were issued a show cause notice dt. 26.12.94 by the Asst. Collector of Cental Excise Division, Jaipur, in which they were called upon to show cause why the modvat credit amounting to Rs. 69,231/- availed by them on the strength of the invoice issued by M/s. b.B. Enterprises, Indore should not be denied to them, as the said party was a distributor/dealer of M/s. Reliance Industries ltd, and had received the material from the consigner on the consignment transfer basis which indicated that they were not buying the material from the manufacturers, as they were only the consignment agents. It was alleged that as per Notfn. No. 15/94-CE (NT) dt. 30.3.94 issued under Rule 57 G(2), the invoice issued by a wholesale distributor/dealer of a manufacturer who had bought the excisable goods alone was the documents for the purpose of taking the modvat credit under Rule 57A. Since in this case, the consignment agent/dealer who had issued the invoice had not bought the excisable goods, the modvat credit thereon would not be admissible.
2. On considering the reply of the party, the Asst. Collector vide his Order dt. 31.1.96 disallowed the modvat credit of the aforesaid amount to the appellants under Rule 57-I. The party filed an appeal which also stood rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur vide his Order dt. 12.10.2000.
3. The present appeal is against the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The matter is listed today for hearing the Stay Petition filed by the party. I have heard Shri Pankaj Mullick, C.A. appearing for the appellants and Shri J. Singh, JDR for the respondents. The ld. Consultant for the appellants submits that as is evident from the above stated facts, the notice is issued to the party for denying the credit on the ground that the consignment agent/dealer who had issued the invoice had not bought the excisable goods and therefore, the modvat credit was not admissible in terms of the provisions of Notfn. No. 15/94-CE (NT) dt. 30.3.94 whereas, the Asst. Collector in his order has denied the modvat credit altogether on a different ground that the said dealer was not registered with the Central Excise authorities as per the Rules, which also as per the submission of the ld. Consultant for the appellants is not factually correct since the said dealer had got himself registered subsequently. It is therefore contended that since the orders of both the lower authorities have travelled beyond the parameters of the show cause notice, the same cannot be sustained. I have considered the submissions. On verification of the documents on record, it is indeed observed that the party was issued a show cause notice on the ground that the modvat credit was not admissible on the strength of the invoice issued by a dealer who had not bought the goods from the manufacturer.
However, the order passed by the Original Authority denying the modvat credit to the appellants is altogether on different grounds for which, they were not put on notice. Prima facie therefore, the order appealed against does not appear to be sustainable. I therefore, grant waiver to the party from making the pre-deposit of the impugned amount and stay its recovery till the disposal of the appeal.
4. The appeal shall come up for final disposal in its own turn.
(Announced and dictated in the Court)