Electro Appliances Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....and confirmed the above amount of demand and also imposed penalty of rs. 10,000/- upon the appellants. the explanation of the appellants is that the shortage detected on 12.12.91 of piezo elements is on account of waste and scrap of piezos arising during the course of manufacture of the final product. however, the explanation has been discarded by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the appellants did not produce any documentary evidence of issue of piezo in the manufacture of the final products.2. on hearing both sides perusing the relevant entries in the rg 23 a part 1 register which shows that during the period in dispute piezo elements were issued for manufacturing process, i am of the view that the issue requires re-examination in the light of the evidence produced before the tribunal and which evidence is already available with the authorities below. i, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the jurisdictional commissioner for fresh orders, after examining the documentary evidence and hearing the appellants.

Judgment:

1. The Collector of Central Excise has disallowed wrongly availed modvat credit of Rs. 74, 490/- on imported piezo elements not utilised as inputs in the manufacture of final product viz. gas lighter by the appellants and confirmed the above amount of demand and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon the appellants. The explanation of the appellants is that the shortage detected on 12.12.91 of piezo elements is on account of waste and scrap of Piezos arising during the course of manufacture of the final product. However, the explanation has been discarded by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that the appellants did not produce any documentary evidence of issue of piezo in the manufacture of the final products.

2. On hearing both sides perusing the relevant entries in the RG 23 A Part 1 register which shows that during the period in dispute piezo elements were issued for manufacturing process, I am of the view that the issue requires re-examination in the light of the evidence produced before the Tribunal and which evidence is already available with the Authorities below. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the jurisdictional Commissioner for fresh orders, after examining the documentary evidence and hearing the appellants.