Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 241 - AT - Central ExciseBenefit of Notification No. 5/98 – Clearance of Goods - The dispute relates to Clearance of Poly Carbonate Bottles falling under Chapter Heading No. 3923.90 of Central Excise Tariff - Revenue was of the view that the appellant was not entitled to exemption as they availed Modvat credit on duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of other products - Whether the clearance of Poly carbonate containers as reflected in the statutory documents in March, 1998, were infact cleared in June, 1998, by which time they attracted duty of excise - Held that:- The appellants could not have anticipated that the exemption was going to be withdrawn with effect from 2-6-1998 - The records were being maintained in the normal course of business and the said entry in March, 1998 appears before the admitted clearance of 2855 pieces, supports their stand that the said 80,000 pieces were actually manufactured and cleared in the month of March 1998 itself - The appellants have taken a strong stand that the entry showing manufacture of 80,000 pieces in RG 1 register was prior to the entry of 2855 containers. Merely because the said letter and the inward register was not available in the office of the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2008 by itself cannot cast doubt on the letter - The inability of the department to trace its own inward register cannot result in an adverse inference against the appellants - the Revenue’s stand that the letter was not locatable in the year 2008, cannot be appreciated - Apart from the visual examination of the said RT 12 return by the adjudicating authority himself, entertaining doubt about two handwritings on two different pages, there was no further evidence to support the said doubt entertained by the authority - The appellants had submitted the said report along with their reply filed in the year 2000, at which point of time the genuineness of the same was neither verified nor questioned by the authorities - The reasons for rejecting the RT 12 return by the adjudicating authority were not legal and valid reason. Non-denial of cross-examination amounts to violation of principles of natural justice or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case - If the reliance is placed solely on the statements of the appellants which stand rebutted by the assessee by production of documentary evidence, it becomes necessary to test the veracity of such statements by the tool of cross-examination - No prejudice would have been caused to the Revenue if the deponents of the statement would have been offered for the cross-examination except that the same would have marginally delayed the proceedings - Fair adjudication cannot be sacrificed at the cost of speedy disposal - order relating to the said demand on rejected and repaired goods and remand the matter to Commissioner for passing the fresh orders.
|