Eicher Tractors Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 9 October, 1990

0
79
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Delhi
Eicher Tractors Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 9 October, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991 (53) ELT 27 Tri Del


ORDER

S.K. Bhatnagar, Members (T)

1. This is a stay application filed with reference to the order of the Additional Collector, Jaipur, No. 25/90 dated 30-4-1990.

2. Learned Representative for the applicants stated that in this case Tractor Engine parts were received by them under Chapter-X Procedure but the same were found defective; hence, they were either returned to the original manufacturer or destroyed.

3. The Department has made out a case against them on the ground that they were not properly accounted for.

4. They admit that they did not maintain the prescribed statutory accounts properly. However, they have maintained their private records properly and had returned the goods under their (private) Issue Return Vouchers.

5. Similarly, they had maintained private records for the quantity destroyed.

6. They had produced these documents before the Adjudicating Authority.

7. It was also their contention that the Show Cause Notice was time-barred as it was issued after lapse of six months and they had not suppressed or mis-stated any facts.

8. It was also their submission that Collector has not discussed their contentions and had not recorded any specific findings with reference to the records submitted to him.

9. In response to a query from the Bench, the learned Representative admitted that they had not given any intimation to the Central Excise Officer(s) either of return the defective pieces or of the destruction thereof. But he stated that no malafides were involved and private records were duly maintained.

10. He also stated that in the circumstances a lenient view was called for.

11. To a further query from the Bench the learned Representative of the applicants stated that he is not pleading financial hardship.

12. The learned S.D.R. stated that in this case extended period of time has been invoked in view of the admitted fact of non-maintenance of statutory records properly and not following the prescribed procedure. The appellants are not new to the excise system and were fully aware that they were required to maintain prescribed records and file monthly returns but did not do so. Admittedly they did not give any intimation to the Central Excise Authorities. Further the goods had not been returned to the factory from which they were received. Hence, the Department has got a good prima facie case. Further the appellant has not pleaded any financial hardship. As such there was no cause for grant of stay.

13. We observe that the learned S.D.R’s contentions have strong force.

14. The applicants have admitted that they have not maintained statutory records and they have not followed the prescribed procedure. They have not even cared to intimate the excise department. Under these circumstances, it is the Department and not the appellant who has a strong prima facie case. No financial hardship has been pleaded.

15. Hence, we see no reason to interfere at this stage. The stay application is, accordingly, rejected.

16. The appellants should deposit the duty amount in question within one month from today failing which the appeal shall be liable to be dismissed without any further notice.

17. To come up for mention about the report of compliance on 14.11.1990.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *