M/S. Bansiwal Iron and Steel Rolling Vs. Cce, Jaipur - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. after allowing the application for admission of appeal, i take up the stay and appeal together with the consent of both sides inasmuch as the impugned order passed by the commissioner (appeals) has not given any decision on the disputed issue involved but has dismissed appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the provision of section 35f of the central excise act, 1944 read with stay order dated 17.4.2001 passed by the commissioner (appeals).2. i find that the amount of duty involved is only to the extent of rs. 6378/-. sh. b.l. ghai, partner appearing for the appellant submits that if given some time, they would reverse back the credit of duty so disallowed by the authorities below. sh. j. singh ld. jdr appearing for the revenue accepts the above offer.3. in view of the foregoing, i direct the appellant to deposit the disputed amount of credit within a period of four weeks from today by debiting the same from their modvat account. in case the credit is not available, the same is required to be deposited in cash. i also find that inasmuch as the commissioner (appeals) has not given any decision on the merits of the case, the matter needs to go back to him.accordingly, i set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the commissioner (appeals) for fresh decision after ascertaining compliance with the stay order passed as above. the appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. stay petition also gets disposed of.

Judgment:
1. After allowing the application for admission of appeal, I take up the stay and appeal together with the consent of both sides inasmuch as the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any decision on the disputed issue involved but has dismissed appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the provision of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with stay order dated 17.4.2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. I find that the amount of duty involved is only to the extent of Rs. 6378/-. Sh. B.L. Ghai, partner appearing for the appellant submits that if given some time, they would reverse back the credit of duty so disallowed by the authorities below. Sh. J. Singh ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue accepts the above offer.

3. In view of the foregoing, I direct the appellant to deposit the disputed amount of credit within a period of four weeks from today by debiting the same from their modvat account. In case the credit is not available, the same is required to be deposited in cash. I also find that inasmuch as the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any decision on the merits of the case, the matter needs to go back to him.

Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision after ascertaining compliance with the stay order passed as above. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. Stay petition also gets disposed of.