1992 (7) TMI 173 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur and Application for stay of recovery of duty and penalty.
2. Unilateral debit made by Range Superintendent in RG-23A Part II Account during pendency of Stay Application.
3. Legal action against unilateral debit entry and prayer for reversal of the debit.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur, along with an Application for stay of recovery of duty and penalty. The Tribunal considered the stay application, where the appellant cited a previous decision in favor of Steel Authority of India Limited. Despite no coercive process issued by the Collector, the Tribunal allowed the applicants to move an application if any coercive process is initiated. The Tribunal deferred passing interim orders due to larger considerations of dealing with appeals and stay applications by Public Sector Undertakings post a Supreme Court Order.

2. The Range Superintendent unilaterally debited the RG-23A Part II Account of the appellant company during the pendency of the Stay Application. The appellant contended that such action was illegal, citing a decision by the Patna High Court. The appellant sought a direction to reverse the debit entry. The Tribunal noted the urgency of the matter and directed the JCDR to obtain a report from the respondent Collector promptly. Despite the JCDR's efforts, no response was received, and the Tribunal found the unilateral debit to be arbitrary and uncalled for, ordering the respondents to reverse the debit entry and report compliance by a specified date.

3. The Tribunal expressed disappointment over the unilateral debit and the JCDR's inability to provide necessary assistance. Citing a decision of the Bombay High Court, the appellant reiterated the prayer for reversal of the debit. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, directed the respondents to reverse the debit made in the RG-23A Part II Account and credit the same amount debited. The respondents were instructed to report compliance by a specified date, emphasizing the importance of the matter. The order was pronounced in court after the hearing, highlighting the Tribunal's decision to reverse the arbitrary debit entry.