M/S. Allied Resins & Chemicals Ltd., ... vs Commr.Of Central Excise, Kolkata-Vi

(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 31/Kol-VI/2011 dated-21/06/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Kolkata-II)

For approval and signature of:

DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER

======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not ?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Authorities ?

M/s. Allied Resins & Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata APPELLANT(S) VERSUS Commr.of Central Excise, Kolkata-VI RESPONDENT(S)

APPEARANCE

Dr. B.N. Das, Consultant FOR APPELLANT(S) Sri A. Roy, Supdt. (A.R.) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER

DATE OF HEARING & DECISION : 13.01.2015

ORDER NO._ Per DR.D.M. MISRA

This is an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.6.87 Lakhs and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944.

2. At the outset, the Ld. Advocate submits that the Ld. Commr. (Appeal) had dismissed their appeal for non-compliance with the direction of pre deposit of Rs.6.00 Lakhs as a condition to hear their appeal. He submits that they have a strong prima facie case on merits. He submits that during the period 2003-2004 and 2006-2007, they have manufactured and removed their finished product viz. S.B. Hardner from their factory to their depot and ultimately sold it from there. The Department confirmed the demand by adding the freight and insurance charges to the assessable value of goods transported from the factory to the depot. He submits that the factory was under BIFR for a very long period and recently commenced production, hence any direction for pre-deposit would cause undue hardship. However, He makes an offer to deposit Rs.50,000/- and prays that the matter may be remanded to the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) for deciding the issue afresh.

3. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue fairly accepts that the Ld. Commr. (Appeal) has not decided the issue on merit and he has no objection for remanding the case.

4. After hearing both sides for some time, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed off at this stage. Accordingly, we take up the appeal for hearing with the consent of both sides.

5. We find that the Ld. Commr. (Appeal) has dismissed their appeal for default in making the pre-deposit of Rs.2.00 Lakhs as condition to hear their Appeal. Considering the financial hardship expressed by the Ld. Consultant, in our opinion, the offer to deposit of Rs.50,000/-, at this stage, seems to be reasonable. Consequently, the appellant is directed to deposit Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) within a period of eight weeks from today and report compliance directly to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). After recording compliance, the Ld. Commr(Appeals) would proceed to decide the matter afresh without insisting any further deposit. Needless to mention that the appellant be given adequate opportunity of hearing. All issues are kept open. The appeal is allowed by way of Remand. S.P. disposed off.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) Sd/- 19/01/15 Sd/- 16/01/15 (DR.I.P.LAL) (DR. D.M. MISRA) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

k.b/-

Excise Appeal No. 835/2011

4