TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared huge quantities of H.R. Coils in the guise of waste and scrap. He, therefore, confirmed a differential duty demand of Rs. 1,64,640/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- as per the Adjudication Order. 2. Brief facts are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of C.R. Coils, C.R. sheets, G.P. coils and G.P. sheets falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff. They were also availing of Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs. They produced as final products, C.R. Coils, Zinc and Aluminium. They were obtaining the inputs of raw-materials viz., H.R. coils from various manufacturers like SAIL, TISCO etc. During the course of manufacture, appellants are required to perform processes like slitting, pickli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order needs to be quashed even without going into merits. On merits, ld. Advocate contended that it was well known that every manufacturing activity generates some process waste and such waste does not fetch the same value as of prime material. In the case of the appellants, the slits had become waste and scrap and it was wrong on the part of the lower authorities to hold that the slits and cut pieces of H.R. coils were of prime quality. Further, there was no allegation against the appellants that they were cutting/slitting the bigger width coils/sheets in order to avail of Modvat credit. It would be obvious that no manufacturer would deliberately convert prime material into scrap. He referred to Note 6(a) of Section XV of the Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usion and therefore the impugned order was sustainable and valid, submitted the ld. SDR. 5. We have considered the submissions and on perusal of records, we find that the Assistant Commissioner has passed the adjudication order without giving any opportunity to the assessee of being heard. This is quite apparent from Paragraph 3 of the Order-in-Original in which the Asst. Commissioner had observed as under : Since the issue involved is the same, I do not see any reason for giving further opportunity to the party and therefore finalise this case in view of my earlier Order-in-Original referred to above and accordingly confirm the demand of said amount . 6. There is no record of any personal hearing being granted to the appellants. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
