w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

M/s. Maithan Steel & Power Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bolpur

Company & Directors' Information:- MAITHAN STEEL AND POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27102WB2001PLC093321

Company & Directors' Information:- S. G. POWER AND STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U14290DL2012PTC240718

Company & Directors' Information:- R. S. STEEL AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100CT2009PTC021362

    Stay Petition No.E/S/71263 of 2013 & Excise Appeal No.E/A/71219 of 2013 (Arising Out of Order-In-Appeal No.76/Bol of 2013 Dated 19.06.2013 Passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-Iii), Kolkata)

    Decided On, 20 January 2014

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Regional Bench Kolkata


    For the Applicant: B.N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant Advocate. For the Respondent: A.K. Biswas, A.R. (SUPDT.).

Judgment Text

1. This is an Application seeking waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.1,96,861/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.2. At the outset, ld. Consultant for the Applicant submits that during the course of Joint Physical Stock Verification on 06.12.2007, certain shortages in the stock of finished goods were found in comparison to the stock mentioned in their Daily Stock Account (DSA). In the DSA, on that date, the stock mentioned was 1055.490 MT, whereas, the physical stock was found as 964.650 MT, leaving a shortage of 90.840 MT. The ld. Consultant vehemently argued that the said shortage had been calculated on presumption basis. He also submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the issue on merits, but dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the direction of predeposit of Rs.2.00 lakh. The ld. Consultant also submitted that in their reply to the show cause notice, they had categorically challenged the Stock Verification Report, which had not been considered by the authorities below. He also prays that the case may be remitted to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the issue on merits. However, he has offered to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- in addition to Rs.1.00 lakh already deposited.

3. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). However, he submits that since the issue involved in the present case has not been decided on merits, he has no objection in remanding the matter to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), for deciding the issue on merits.

4. After hearing both sides for some time, I find that the Appeal itself could be disposed of, at this stage. Accordingly, with the consent of both sides, the present Appeal is taken up for disposal.

5. I find that the limited issue involved in the present Appeal, is whether there was a shortage of 90.840 MT in the stock of Sponge Iron, during the visit of the Officers on 06.12.2007. I find from the record that initially, the Appellant had agreed to the Joint Stock Verification, but later disputed the same. This aspect has to be considered by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). At this stage, taking note of the fact that the Appellant had already deposited Rs.1.00 lakh and the ld. Consultant offered to deposit further amount of Rs.50,000/-, I am of the opinion that on deposit of Rs.50,000/-, the case be heard by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, I direct the Appellant to deposit Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) within eight weeks from today, and report compliance directly before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who, after recording the compliance, would decide the issue afresh, without insisting any further deposit. In the result,

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

the impugned Order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issue afresh. Needless to mention that a reasonable opportunity of hearing be granted to the Appellant. All issues are kept open. The Appeal is allowed by way of remand. The Stay Petition disposed of.