9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of Modvat credit and penalty. 2. Shortage of inputs, failure to account for inputs, duty evasion, issuance of show cause notice, and penalty imposition. 3. Grounds for seeking stay, arguments by both parties, and relevant legal provisions. 4. Examination of evidence, prima facie case, cross-examination request, and limitation aspect. 5. Case laws cited, permission for storing inputs, rejection of request, and remand for fresh consideration. Analysis: Issue 1: The applicant sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of Modvat credit and penalty based on an Order-in-Original dated 8-12-97. The shortage of inputs, failure to account for them, duty evasion, and penalty imposition were the key issues challenged in the appeal. Issue 2: The case involved a surprise check revealing a shortage of inputs, failure to maintain proper records, and clandestine removal of goods to evade excise duty. The show cause notice was issued, and after a personal hearing, the Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty. The appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the current appeal for waiver and stay. Issue 3: The applicant, a Small Scale Industry (SSI) unit, argued for a stay based on strong prima facie merits, lack of evidence for clandestine removal, and financial hardship. The Respondent highlighted the lack of permission for storing inputs outside the factory and raised legal provisions regarding user in manufacture and limitation aspects. Issue 4: Upon examining the evidence and arguments, it was found that the applicant had a strong prima facie case, and their request for cross-examination was not considered. The Collector had permitted storing inputs outside the factory, and the limitation aspect of the show cause notice was not adequately addressed by the lower authorities. Issue 5: Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal found that the Jurisdictional Commissioner had empowered the storage of inputs outside the factory premises, supporting the applicant's case. The rejection of the request to check the stock in the godown was deemed improper, leading to the allowance of the stay application and remand for fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the stay application, waived the pre-deposit, and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision in light of the observations made and the relevant legal provisions and case laws cited during the proceedings.
|
