M/S. Bhilai Iron And Steel vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[Arising out of Order-In-Original No. COMMISSIONER/RPR/CEX/08/2014 dated 28.2.2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Raipur (CG)]

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

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. Bhilai Iron and Steel Appellants

Processing Co. P Ltd.

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

& ST, Raipur

Appearance:

Ms. Reen Khair, Ms Tuhina Sinha, Advocates for the Appellants

Shri R K Grover, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 17.2.2015

ORDER NO. FO/ 50466/2015-Ex(DB)

Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order confirming the duty demand on shortage of inputs which has been determined by comparing the balance sheet of the appellant and RG 23 A Part I register which is maintained for inputs.

2. The facts of the case are that appellant is a manufacturer of iron and steel items and for that they are procuring certain iron and steel items as raw material. All three raw materials were recorded in the statutory records like RG 23 A Part I register . The audited balance sheet were filed with the Income Tax department. On the basis of balance sheet of the appellant which contain closing stock, the authorities concerned investigated the matter and found that figures of closing stock on a particular date did not match with the balance sheet as shown in the RG 23 A Part I register. On the basis of this, it was alleged that appellant is clearing inputs clandestinely without payment by not reversing the credit thereon. The show cause notice issued demanding duty which were confirmed by impugned order along with interest. Penalty was also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant is before us.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that they have filed a Misc. application to bring additional evidence on record in the form of reconciliation statement of RG 23 A part I register, balance sheet and explained the shortages. Considering the fact that reconciliation statement is a technical document to sort out the matter therefore, same is taken on record by allowing the Misc. application.

4. Further, the learned Counsel submits that closing stock shown in the balance sheet includes raw material and scrap generated during the course of manufacture of semi-finished goods. If all these three things are segregated then the entry shown in the RG 23A Part I register is correct. Therefore, this matter is to be examined at the end of adjudicating authority by considering the light of reconciliation statement produced before us. Therefore, she prays that the matter be remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration.

5. On the other hand, learned AR opposed the contention of the learned Consultant and submits that the appellant were given an ample opportunity to explain the shortages by the adjudicating authority which appellant failed to do so, therefore, the reconciliation statement is not required to be taken on record. He further submitted that as there is shortage of inputs and no evidence has been produced by the appellant, therefore demands are rightly confirmed.

6. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.

7. As reconciliation statement is very much relevant to decide the issue, we allow the Misc. application and reconciliation statement is taken on record. Further we find that whole case has been made out against the appellant on the basis of balance sheet and RG 23A Part I register, no statement has been recorded and no other corroborative evidence has been produced by the Revenue to allege clandestine removal of inputs. In these circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh after considering the reconciliation statement produced by the appellant before us. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by way of remand.

8. Stay application is also disposed of in the above terms.

(dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Rakesh Kumar )

Member(Technical)

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

ss

??

??

??

??

2