2003 (11) TMI 253 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit due to loss of relevant records in a fire incident.
2. Rejection of application for remission of duty by the Commissioner.
3. Confirmation of demand for duty without documentary evidence of payment.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing air-coolers under the Modvat scheme, faced a fire incident destroying statutory records, raw materials, and finished goods. The issue arose when show cause notices were issued to deny Modvat credit due to the absence of transporters' copies, which were destroyed in the fire. The appellants reconstructed records from original documents meant for their head office to justify the credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) alleged no production of documents, contrary to the appellants' claim of using extra/original copies of invoices for credit, leading to a dispute on the premises of the Commissioner's decision.

2. A part of the demand was confirmed based on the rejection of the appellants' application for remission of duty by the Commissioner. However, the appellants argued that their application was pending, supported by a letter from the Superintendent indicating the application's submission for consideration. The discrepancy between the Commissioner (Appeals) stating rejection and the actual pending status of the application raised concerns regarding the justification for confirming the demand.

3. Another part of the demand was upheld due to the lack of documentary evidence for duty payment during specific clearances. The show cause notice highlighted the absence of duty-paying documents as the clearances were recorded in RG-23A Part-II, which were also destroyed in the fire. The inability to produce these documents post-fire led to the confirmation of the demand. However, the Tribunal considered the appellants' inability to provide documents due to the fire incident and cited precedent regarding the loss of duplicate invoices as a loss in transit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision considering the observations made. The appeal was allowed through remand, and the stay petition was disposed of accordingly.