M/S. Bihar Steel Products Vs. Cce, Jsr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....both in description as well as the classification as against the same described in the modvatable documents. in this view of the matter we find that the appellants have not been also to make out a prima facie case in their favour. the ld. counsel for the appellants states that the factory has remained closed for a long period and their financial position does not permit them to make the predeposit of the entire amount of duty and penalty confirmed on them. he, however, very fairly submits that his clients would be in a position to make a predeposit of rs.2 lakhs. taking these submission into consideration we direct the appellants to make a predeposit of rs.2 lakhs as part of the duty confirmed on them within a period of six weeks from today. on making such deposit the balance amount of duty and the penalty imposed on them shall stand waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal.5. the matter will be called for reporting compliance on 24.8.2001. on compliance with this order the appeal itself will be taken up on the said date.

Judgment:

1. The appellants manufacture Hamilton Poles falling under sub-heading 7308.90 of the schedule to the CETA, 1985. They avail modvat credit of Rs.12,86,308.75 on the input items CR Coils (As such 7211.50), CR coils (As such 7290.30), CR Coils (As such 7209.30) and Pig Iron (As such 7201.00). Modvat credit of the above said amount has been denied to the appellants by the Asstt.Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi vide his order dt.5.11.96 and he has further imposed a penalty of Rs.20,000/- on them on the grounds that the modvat credit on the above said items has been taken without filing declaration in respect of them as provided under rule 57G read with rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

The party filed an appeal, but the same stood rejected vide the order dt.17.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patna.

2. The party is in appeal against the above order of the Commissioner(Appeals). The matter is listed today for hearing the stay petition of the appellants.

3. We have heard Shri S.K. Roychowdhury, ld. adv. for the appellants and Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, ld. JDR for the Revenue.

4. We have considered the submissions made from both the sides. During the course of hearing the ld.counsel for the appellants has taken us through the declaration filed by the appellants in this regard. On perusal of the copies of the declaration filed by the party, it is observed that the declaration made therein indeed differs both in description as well as the classification as against the same described in the modvatable documents. In this view of the matter we find that the appellants have not been also to make out a prima facie case in their favour. The ld. counsel for the appellants states that the factory has remained closed for a long period and their financial position does not permit them to make the predeposit of the entire amount of duty and penalty confirmed on them. He, however, very fairly submits that his clients would be in a position to make a predeposit of Rs.2 lakhs. Taking these submission into consideration we direct the appellants to make a predeposit of Rs.2 lakhs as part of the duty confirmed on them within a period of six weeks from today. On making such deposit the balance amount of duty and the penalty imposed on them shall stand waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

5. The matter will be called for reporting compliance on 24.8.2001. On compliance with this order the appeal itself will be taken up on the said date.