Shri Ram Steels Vs. Collector of Central Ex. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....31-5-1993 whereas the order-in-appeal has been passed in november, 1993. perhaps the document was not placed before the collector by mistake but the fact is that they have paid, this is even otherwise evident from a copy of rg 23a part ii filed by them with their appeal memorandum which was enclosure to their letter dated 23-5-1993 addressed to the collector placed at annexure 21 (page 49).3. when earlier the matter had come up for consideration of the stay petition, since the photocopy was not clear, the bench had desired that it may be got attested by the supdt. concerned and they have since filed the copy duly attested by the supdt.4. it was also their submission that in view of this fact, there was no need on their part for depositing any further amount. furthermore, since it is already a settled issue, the matter may not be remanded to the collector but may be decided on the basis of identical matters in which the tribunal has already passed orders including the order in the case of shri krishna steels v. cce, raipur vide order no. a/1509/95-nb, dated 20-12-1995.5. actually, in this case, the inputs were purchased from bhilai steel plant and were directly received from their.....

Judgment:

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Indore, dated 9-11-1993.

2. Learned representative of the appellants stated that the Collector has erroneously dismissed their appeal on the ground of non-compliance with Section 35F as they had in view of their rejection of the stay application, paid the amount in question by making an appropriate entry in RG 23A Part II and had given intimation to the Collector (Appeals) vide photocopy of the registered acknowledgements/documents placed at Annexure 22 (Page 45) which shows the date of the registry as 25-5-1993 and its receipt by the Collector (Appeals) office on 31-5-1993 whereas the Order-in-Appeal has been passed in November, 1993. Perhaps the document was not placed before the Collector by mistake but the fact is that they have paid, this is even otherwise evident from a copy of RG 23A Part II filed by them with their appeal memorandum which was enclosure to their letter dated 23-5-1993 addressed to the Collector placed at Annexure 21 (Page 49).

3. When earlier the matter had come up for consideration of the stay petition, since the photocopy was not clear, the Bench had desired that it may be got attested by the Supdt. concerned and they have since filed the copy duly attested by the Supdt.

4. It was also their submission that in view of this fact, there was no need on their part for depositing any further amount. Furthermore, since it is already a settled issue, the matter may not be remanded to the Collector but may be decided on the basis of identical matters in which the Tribunal has already passed orders including the order in the case of Shri Krishna Steels v. CCE, Raipur vide Order No. A/1509/95-NB, dated 20-12-1995.

5. Actually, in this case, the inputs were purchased from Bhilai Steel Plant and were directly received from their stores under Gate Passes/Challans which clearly indicated payment of duty.

6. The Supdt., however, issued the show cause notice and the Assistant Collector denied the benefit on the ground that such challans/vouchers were not acceptable as duty-paying documents for the purposes of claiming Modvat.

7. However, the Board itself had issued instructions on 11-2-1994 that Modvat credit may be allowed where amount of duty was on delivery order/challan-wise on certificate issued by Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai vide photocopy of the aforesaid communication enclosed by them along with the aforesaid Tribunal's order dated 30-11-1995/20-12-1995.

8. It is, therefore, their request that their appeal may be accepted and the amount already paid should be made available to them by reversal of the entry already made in view of the orders of the A.C.and the Collector.

9. Learned DR stated that he has seen the certified entry of 22-5-1993 in the RG 23A Part H duly signed by the Supdt.

10. He also agrees that now it is already a settled issue in view of series of orders of the Tribunal that vouchers/challans/gate passes issued by the Public Sector Undertakings from their factory or stores may be accepted as duty-paying documents. He also agrees that the ratio of the order of the Tribunal cited by the learned representative of the appellants squarely covers the case. He also agrees that the instructions of the Board dated 11-2-1994 circulated by the Dy.

Collector (T) of the Central Excise cover the appellants' case since by this Circular, Board has allowed acceptance of delivery order/challan, even a certificate given by Bhilai Steel Plant. He has also seen the copies of such documents produced by the appellants and agrees that they clearly show endorsement of duty payment. Therefore, he has no objection to the request of the appellants being granted.

11. I have considered the above submissions. I observe that in view of the deposit already made in terms of the Collector's order, no further deposit was called for and the appeal could be heard straightaway. I also observe that in view of the above submissions, the dispute has virtually ceased; And, in view of this position, there is no point in remanding the matter and I allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.

12. Further, in view of the appellants' request to which learned DR has no objection, since the entry on 22-5-1993 was made in view of the rejection of the stay application by the Collector, therefore, this entry could itself be directly reversed in terms of this order and that would be sufficient for the purpose of this case.