Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + Commissioner Central Excise - 1993 (1) TMI Commissioner This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1993 (1) TMI 146 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand by Assistant Collector due to non-production of original duty paying documents.
2. Applicability of modvat facility under Rule 57A.
3. Application under Section 35F for waiving pre-deposit of duty.
4. Consideration of submissions and impugned order by the Commissioner.
5. Contention regarding non-production of original documents seized by Preventive Department.
6. Re-examination of the case based on availability of original duty paying documents.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order confirming a demand of Rs. 2,25,531.87 by the Assistant Collector, as the appellant failed to produce original duty paying documents despite a lapse of one year after the show cause notice. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing iron and steel products, availed modvat facility under Rule 57A. The Assistant Collector alleged wrongful credit availed in March 1990 due to receiving goods without proper documents. The appellant claimed the original documents were seized by the Preventive Department and submitted photocopies. A hearing was granted, and the demand was confirmed, leading to the appeal.

The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F, but upon failure to provide supporting evidence, they were directed to pre-deposit the duty. Compliance was made, and a personal hearing was scheduled. During the hearing, the appellant's advocate reiterated grounds of appeal and submitted a written brief with relevant documents seized on a specific date.

The Commissioner carefully considered all submissions and the impugned order. The main issue was whether the Assistant Collector's order was legally valid. The appellant argued that the order was erroneous as they couldn't produce original documents seized by the Preventive Department, which were now returned. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand solely based on non-production of original documents, dismissing the appellant's explanation. The Commissioner noted the return of original documents and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, directing the Assistant Collector to verify the documents and provide a hearing to the appellant for a fair decision.

In conclusion, the Commissioner allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of re-examining the case in light of the now available original duty paying documents.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates