9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an Mohan Sharma, Director, M/s. Saharanpur Engg. Works, Shri S.M. Shastri, Sales Manager of M/s. Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd and Shri J.K. Tandon (Co-applicants in short), who have jointly filed an application vide S.A.E. NO. 599/04, dated 17-5-2004 for settlement of their case arising out of the Show Cause Notice C.No. IV-CE(9)/CP/M-1/17/99, dated 17-4-2002 issued by Additional Commissioner (Prev.), Central Excise, Meerut-I. 2. Briefly the facts of the case have been mentioned in the Admission Order No. A-225-226/CE/2004-SC(PB) dated 20-7-2004. However, for the sake of brevity, it may be relevant to refer that the applicant is engaged in the manufacture of Sugar and Molasses falling under Tariff heading 17.01 and 17.03 of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- each on the applicant firm and M/s. Saharanpur Engg. Works besides Rs. 2,50,000/- each on other co-applicants. Aggrieved by this order the applicant filed an appeal before C.C. (Appeal), Central Excise, Meerut-I, which is pending for disposal. 3. After hearing both the sides, Commission admitted the case vide its Admission Order No. A-225-226/CE/2004-SC(PB) dated 20-7-2004 directing the applicant to deposit admitted duty liability of Rs. 6,95,166/- (Rs. 7,78,736/- -Rs. 83,570/-) within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order which has since then been complied by the applicant and also confirmed in writing vide their letter dated 24-8-2004 enclosing thereunder photocopy of TR-6 challan dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the department as per details at pages 66 to 74 of the application. In view of the aforesaid facts, the ld. advocate pleaded that the applicant should be granted immunity from penalty, interest as well. On the issue of the immunity from interest, he referred to the financial difficulties faced by the applicant. 5. The representative of Revenue while confirming the compliance of Admission Order by the applicant, stated that since no evidence and proof of payment of duty in regard to the capital goods on which the aforesaid amount of Modvat credit of Rs. 83,570/- was availed by the applicant was furnished. Verification of the same could not be completed. He also referred to the fact that no identification marks were recorded in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereto and considered the written as well as oral submissions made during the course of hearings including the written submissions made in compliance to the aforesaid Admission Order and comes to the conclusion that while major amount of duty liability has been discharged by the applicant, the only dispute is regarding a minor amount of Rs. 83,570/- where the applicant has furnished details such as invoices, freight bills, cash book and supplier's ledger account, etc. which would indicate that the said capital goods were received by the applicant firm and for which the Modvat credit of Rs. 83,570/- was availed of although no co-relation could be done by the Revenue in the absence of identification marks on the machinery. Revenue on their pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
