Petropol India Limited vs Cce, Jaipur-I

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.89-90(VC)CE/JPR-I/2013 dated 31.07.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur ]

For approval and signature:

HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, 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?

Petropol India Limited Appellant

Satish Kumar

Vs.

CCE, Jaipur-I  Respondent

Present for the Appellant : Shri Santhanam, Advocate

Present for the Respondent: Shri R.K.Mishra, DR

Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 10.08.2015

Final ORDER NO. 53980-53981/2015

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 31.07.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur upholding confirmation of the adjudged demand.

2. Shri R. Santhanam, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the officials of the sales tax department visited the factory of the appellant on 25th June, 2008 and during the course of verification of the books of accounts vis-`-vis the physical stock available in the factory, they found that though170.625 M.T. of M.S. Ingots was physically available in the factory, but the same were not reflected in the statutory records maintained by the appellant. Based on such verification report of the Sales-tax department, the Central Excise Department visited factory of the appellant on 16.09.2008 and during verification, they observed that there is no discrepancy in the stock position of the inputs as well as the finished goods. However, since the sales tax department has detected excess stock of M.S. Ingots in the factory, on the basis of such verification report the appellant was called upon to deposit Rs.9,29,300/- which the appellant paid under protest. The ld. Advocate submits that the M.S. Ingots purchased on 25.06.2008 has not been taken into account in the stock register. He submits had this stock position taken into consideration, there would not have any discrepancy and the said fact was also brought to the notice of the Central Excise Authorities vide letter dated 27.07.2006 with a statement indicating the details of purchases made during 24th and 25th June, 2008. He also submits that the show cause notice issued on 6th July, 2010 covering the period of 25th of June, 2008 is barred by limitation having been issued beyond the period of one year from the relevant date.

3. Shri R.K. Mishra the ld. D.R. appearing for the respondent reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order.

4. I have heard the ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records.

5. I find that though the appellant had furnished the information vide its letter dated 27.07.2010 regarding the details of purchases made during the period 24th and 25th June, 2008, but the said fact has not been considered by the Adjudicating Authority. In view of the fact that the submissions of the appellant have not been considered by the authorities below and the duty liability has been confirmed, I am of the view that the principles of natural justice has been violated in this case, and as such, this matter is required to be remanded back to the Original Authority for fact finding with regard to the submissions made by the appellant vide letter dated 27.07.2010 that there is no discrepancy in the stock of M.S. Ingots physically available in the factory and those entered in the statutory records. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Original Authority for giving a fresh fact finding with regard to the submissions of the appellant as above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

(S.K. MOHANTY)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Anita

??

??

??

??

0 2