9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 45 - AT - Central ExciseIron Ore Cess - seeking waiver of pre deposit of Iron Ore Cess and equal amount of penalty - Held that - The appellant made a categorical statement that the cess has already been paid by M/s. Usha Martin in support of which they have annexed the letter dt. 29.2.2012 along with relevant challans but could not be produced before the authorities below for the reason that the said challans were received after the order-in-original was passed by the adjudicating authority on 28/12/11 and the Commr. (Appeal) has passed an ex parte order. Order of the Commr. (Appeal) set aside and the matter is remanded to back for considering the issue afresh.
Issues: Application for waiver of pre deposit of Iron Ore Cess and penalty under relevant Acts.
Analysis: The appellant filed an application seeking waiver of pre deposit of Iron Ore Cess and penalty imposed under the Iron Ore Mines, Manganese Ore Mines, and Chrome Ore Mines Labour Welfare Cess Act, 1976 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant received Iron Ore from a company for conversion into pig iron, and claimed that the Iron Ore Cess had already been paid by the supplying company, as evidenced by a letter and relevant challans. However, the letter confirming payment was not presented before the lower authorities initially. The Assistant Commissioner pointed out that the appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After hearing both sides, the Judge found that the appeal could be disposed of without the need for pre deposit. The dispute revolved around the payment of Iron Ore Cess under the relevant Acts. The appellant provided evidence of payment by the supplying company, which was not available during the earlier proceedings due to timing issues. Consequently, the order of the Lower Commissioner was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, allowing both parties to present necessary evidence. The Judge emphasized the need for a fair hearing without requiring any deposit from the appellant. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the matter was disposed of accordingly, ensuring a fair opportunity for both parties to present their case with all issues kept open for further consideration.
|
