M/S Maa Saraswati Steel Re-Rolling ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AV(244-248)219, 220, 221, 222, 210/2013 dated 19.8.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad).

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial)

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

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? ======================================================

M/s Maa Saraswati Steel Re-rolling Mills Ltd. Shri Anil Dattabhau Lingade Appellant

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Respondent

Appearance: None (written submission) for Appellant

Shri V.K. Shashtri, AC (AR) for Respondent

CORAM: SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing: 13.04.2015

Date of Decision: 13.04.2015

ORDER NO.

Per: Shri Anil Choudhary

These appeals are filed by the appellants against Order-in-Appeal No. AV(244-248)219, 220, 221, 222, 210/2013 dated 19.8.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad by which the appeals were dismissed for non-compliance under the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The appellants state that the issue relates to clandestine manufacture and removal of goods by one M/s Bhadramaruti Concast Pvt. Ltd., the main appellant and other two other appellants are co-noticee being the receiver of the goods manufactured by M/s Bhadramaruti Concast Pvt. Ltd. Vide Order-in-Original dated 30.5.2013 invocation of extended period was upheld. A duty demand of Rs.9,84,751/- was confirmed on M/s Bhadramaruti Concast Pvt. Ltd. and the goods valued at Rs.95,60,688/- clandestinely cleared were held liable for confiscation. Since the goods were not physically available, a redemption fine of Rs.9,50,000/- was imposed in lieu of confiscation. Further, a penalty of Rs.9,84,751/- under Section 11AC was imposed along with equal amount of penalty under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. An equal amount of penalty was also imposed on Shri Anil D Lingade, Director of M/s Bhadramaruti Concast Pvt. Ltd. under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and penalties of an amount of Rs.8 lakhs each was imposed on M/s Adinath Steel Re-Rolling Mills, M/s Kanakdhara Steel Re-rolling Mill and one M/s Maa Sarswati Steel Re-rolling Mill, who were the other co-noticee in the show-cause notice.

3. None appeared for the appellants. However, a written submission is filed praying to decide the matter on merits in the light of Tribunals decision, in the co-appellants case against the same impugned order, vide Order No. A/1219-1221/14/SMB/C-IV dated 15.7.2014, remanding the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) subject to deposit of 25% of the duty confirmed and the matter of other co-appellants without any pre-deposit.

4. The learned AR fairly concedes that the matter has been remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the same impugned order.

5. Accordingly, these appeals are also remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter in the light of Order No. A/1219-1221/14/SMB/C-IV dated 15.7.2014 of this Tribunal. The relevant portion of the order of this Tribunal in the co-appellants case is reproduced herein for ready reference: -

4. Having considered the rival contentions and following the ruling of the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Gajlaxmi Steel (Jalna) Pvt. Ltd. and others (supra), I direct the main appellant manufacturer M/s Bhadramaruti Concast Pvt. Ltd. to deposit 25% of the duty confirmed within a period of eight weeks and report compliance before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subject to such payment, the pre-deposit of the balance amount of dues adjudged against the main appellant as well as the other two appellants shall remain waived and recovery thereof stayed. I further direct the learned Commissioner (Appeals), subject to pre-deposit of amount as indicated above, to hear the matter on merits and dispose of the appeals.

5. The appeals are allowed in aforementioned terms in part by way of remand. The stay applications also stand disposed of.

6. Thus, the appeals are allowed by of remand in the above terms.

(Dictated and pronounced in Court)

(Anil Choudhary) Member (Judicial) Sinha

1