M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Patna

Stay Petition No.SP-76162/14 & Appeal No.Ex.Ap.76048/14 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.10/MP/Ayukt/2014 dated 31.03.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna.)

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE

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

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 Authorative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Authorities?

M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Applicant (s)/Appellant (s) Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna Respondent (s)

Appearance:

Shri R.R.K. Pandey, Accounts Officer for the Appellant (s) Shri S.Sharma, Commr.(A.R.) for the Respondent (s)

CORAM:

Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) Honble Dr. I.P. Lal, Member(Technical)

Date of Hearing:- 07.01.2015 Date of Pronouncement :- 07.01.2015

ORDER NO.FO/A/75012/2015

Per Dr. D.M. Misra.

1. This is an Application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of CENVAT Credit of Rs.1.11 Crores and equal amount of penalty under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. At the outset Shri R.R.K. Pandey, Accounts Officer of the Applicant submits that out of the total demand, approximately Rs.60.82 Lakhs has been confirmed on the ground non-production of relevant invoices before the Ld.Commissioner. He submits that due to reallocation of the offices during the relevant period, documents could not be traced and produced before the Ld.Commissioner. He submits that these documents have been procured subsequently, copies of which are now enclosed to the Appeal Paper book (Pages 216-274, 289-345). He further submits that regarding the confirmed demand for the remaining amount, they have also placed evidences which are not considered, by which it Could be established that CENVAT Credit against those documents and the equipments are eligible. He further requests that the matter may be remitted to the learned adjudicating authority so as to provide them a chance to place all the documents, which were not earlier produced. He makes an offer to deposit Rs.5.00 Lakhs.

3. The Ld.A.R. for the Revenue has objection for remanding the case.

4. After hearing sides we find that Appeal could be disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, we take up the Appeal for disposal with the consent of both sides.

5. Prima facie, we find that major portion of the demand had been confirmed due to non-production of the relevant documents on which CENVAT Credit availed. The learned representative for the Appellant fairly accepts that these documents could not be produced at the time of adjudication due to its non-availability resulting into confirmation of the demand. In the interest of justice, the Appellant be given a fair chance to produce documents for scrutiny. The offer to deposit Rs.5.00 Lakhs at this stage seems to be reasonable. Consequently, the Appellant is directed to deposit Rs.5.00 Lakhs and report compliance directly to the Commissioner within eight weeks, and on deposit of the said amount, the Ld.Commissioner would proceed with the adjudication taking into consideration all evidences on record and the evidences that would be produced by the appellant during the course of adjudication proceeding. Needless to mention, a reasonable opportunity of hearing be granted to the appellant. All issues kept open. In the result the impugned order is set aside and the Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay Petition disposed of.

(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)

SD/ SD/

(I.P.LAL) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) sm

3 Appeal No. Ex.Ap.76048/14