2004 (8) TMI 455 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against orders-in-appeal affirming orders-in-original confirming demand and penalty for failure to pay full supervision charges and cost/recovery charges under Section 142 of the Act read with conditions of B-17 security bond. Contention regarding sharing of charges by 100% EOU appellants within the same Supervision Range.

Analysis:
The appellants filed appeals against orders-in-appeal dated 30-4-2003 confirming demand and penalty imposed by the Deputy Commissioner for not paying full supervision charges and cost/recovery charges. The contention was that they had applied for sharing charges as 100% EOU units within the same Supervision Range. The authorised representative argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not decide their application for sharing charges, and only gave prospective permission without providing any reason. The appellants had already deposited 50% of the charges in advance and referred to a similar case where sharing of charges was allowed from the date of application. The impugned orders were deemed illegal and requested to be set aside.

The learned SDR supported the impugned order, stating the appellants were liable to pay charges as per the B-17 bond conditions. After hearing both sides and reviewing the record, the judge found merit in the appellants' contentions. It was established that both appellants were 100% EOU units under the same Supervision Range and had applied for permission to share charges in 1998. However, there was no evidence of a speaking order on their application. A letter from the Asstt. Commissioner informed the appellants of permission to share charges prospectively without providing any reason. The judge noted that a similar unit was allowed to share charges from the date of application, and since the appellants had already paid 50% of the charges, permission for sharing charges should not be prospective but effective from the date of their application.

Consequently, the impugned orders by the Commissioner (Appeals) were set aside. The appellants were granted permission to share supervision/establishment charges from the date of their application in 1998, and the amount already deposited by them was to be adjusted towards their charges. Both appeals were accepted with any consequential relief permissible under the law.