Blog

The Judgement in Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Steel Authority Of India (IA NO.GA/2/2021) was served by THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA.

FACTS OF THE CASE:
with annexures and the same has returned with the postal endorsement dated 08.01.2020 “refused by dispatch, SAIL, Bolpur Works”. Since notice has been refused to be received by the respondent it is deemed to have been served on the respondent, and therefore, the court proceed to hear the application and take a decision on merits. As observed earlier, since the appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the court are to consider as to whether any question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Therefore, for such reason alone, the court exercise discretion and condone the delay. The court do not appreciate the manner the affidavit in support of the condone delay petition has been drafted, hothe court ver, the court refrain from taking any action and sincerely hope that such mistakes shall not be repeated in future and a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur, presently known as Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Bolpur Commissionerate as the court ll as Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise.
In the result the petition is allothe court d. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. CEXA/28/2021 Present appeal by the revenue filed under Section 35(G)(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (‘the Act’ for brevity) is directed against the order dated 17th May, 2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench (Tribunal) in Excise Appeal no. 345 of 2010 arising out of an order in original No. 17/Commr./Bol dated 11.03.2010.

JUDGEMENT:
The court afternoon through the facts and arguments advanced by the parties observed that the the Central Excise Duty has been demanded by the appellant on the sole ground of difference be the court the quantity of the granulated slag shown in the Annual Operational Statistical Report and the quantity shown in the monthly ER-1 return filed for the period July 2004 to March, 2008. Apart from that there is no evidence of removal of goods from the factory. Thus the Tribunal noted that the show cause notice came to be issued solely based upon the difference in the two statements. The respondent referred to the agreement be the court en them and M/s. ACC, DCSL under which they the court re required to sell 70% of the molten slag generated in their factory to the said company. Further it was not disputed that M/s. ACC, DCSL is situated in the same factory premises of the respondent and it is also not disputed that M/s. ACC DCSL cleared the granulated slag on payment of duty. The Tribunal after noting the facts has held that the entire demand has been confirmed by the appellant without ascertaining respondent’s manufacturing capacity for the additional quantity of 6,91,315 M.T. based on which the demand was raised. Further the Tribunal noted molten slag cleared by the appellant to M/s. ACC, DCSL is exempted vide Notification 4 of 2006 and C-E dated 01.03.2006. The Tribunal further proceeded to consider as to what would be the significance of the entry ” new plant” and noted that the annual dispatch summary is not a statutory record or an authorized document. The respondent explained that during the relevant period, respondent had one granulation plant which was called old plant, one plant was set up by M/s. ACC, DCSL which is in the factory premises of the respondent which was shown as ‘new plant’ in certain records and that the granulated slag emerging from this plant the court re cleared on payment of duty. Thus noting these facts, the Tribunal was satisfied with the explanation offered and also took note of an important fact that duty has been paid by M/s. ACC, DCSL with granulated slag, which has been recorded in the order passed by the Commissioner and there is no dispute with the said fact. Thus, the court are of the view that the Tribunal rightly granted relief to the respondent considering the factual position and the court find that no question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed. Consequently, stay application stands dismissed.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AKANKSHA Click Here To View Judgement