M/S. Excel Glasses Ltd., Vs. Central Excise, Cochin - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....reported in 2000(37) rlt 887 and other decisions referred to by the counsel. "thus it may kindly be seen that the appellant has a very strong prima facie case and bound to succeed in the final appeal. during the financial year ended 31.3.2000, the apellant company has paid excise duty to the tune of rs.71.37 lakhs and hence waiving the pre-deposit of the paltry sum of rs.1.25 lakhs would not jeopardise the interests of the revnue".6. following the ratio of the aforesaid decision we are remanding the matter to the concerned adjudicating authority to examine the issue afresh and pass an appropriate order on giving an opportunity to the party. thus this appeal is allowed by way of remand. the stay petition also disposed of accordingly.

Judgment:

1. This is a stay application filed by the applicants for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs.1,24,896/- and penalty of Rs.1,000/- under Rule 173 A of the Central Excise Rules.

2. Arguing for the appellants Shri.V. Balasubramanyam, Ld. Advocate submitted that the issue relates to modvat credit. Modvat credit has been denied on the ground that the invoice issued to the party is not a valid document to avail Modvat credit. He submits that the observations made by the authorities is purely technical in nature and modvat credit cannot be denied on technical lapses based on the following cases:- 1) 1999 (105) ELT 294 (T). CCE Vs. Shree Ram Vinyl & Chemical Industries Ltd., 4. After hearing both sides with reference to the stay petition filed by the party we find that the matter can be disposed of. Accordingly appeal was taken for regular hearing with the consent of both sides. We find that the issue involved in this case is similar to the case of Birla Ericsson Optical Ltd., Vs. CCE Bhopal reported in 2000(37) RLT 887 and other decisions referred to by the Counsel.

"Thus it may kindly be seen that the Appellant has a very strong prima facie case and bound to succeed in the final appeal. During the financial year ended 31.3.2000, the Apellant Company has paid excise duty to the tune of Rs.71.37 lakhs and hence waiving the pre-deposit of the paltry sum of Rs.1.25 lakhs would not jeopardise the interests of the revnue".

6. Following the ratio of the aforesaid decision we are remanding the matter to the concerned adjudicating authority to examine the issue afresh and pass an appropriate order on giving an opportunity to the party. Thus this appeal is allowed by way of remand. The stay petition also disposed of accordingly.