ORDER
G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. The captioned nine appeals were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that M/s. Ratangiri Hathkargha Vastra Ltd., M/s. Ratangiri Ind. Ltd. and M/s. Subham Hathkargha Vastra Ltd. procured yarn from M/s. Shree Bhawani Textiles. M/s. Shree Bhawani Textiles extended them the benefit of Notification No. 53/91, dated 25-7-1991. The Deptt. alleged that this notification required that the payment by the purchasing co-op, society shall be made through a cheque drawn on their own account maintained with the bank and that the society was not permitted to pass on a part or whole of the yarn so procured to some other person either for use in power looms or sale as yarn elsewhere. The appellants submitted that they were making payment by Demand Draft or Pay Order obtained from the bank against drawal of cheque on their own account maintained with the Bank. About passing on the yarn to power looms or selling it as such, the appellant submitted that it was not one of the conditions of the Notification. The Asstt. Commissioner held that the concession under Notification No. 53/91, dated 25-7-1991 was not admissible to the appellants and therefore, imposed penalties on the appellants.
3. Arguing the appeal Shri P. Mullick, ld. Chartered Accountant submits that the Notification in question had only two conditions namely that the yarn could be procured without payment of duty by registered co-op, society and that the payment against this purchase should have been by a cheque drawn on the account of the registered co-op, society. Ld. Chartered Accountant submits that both the conditions were complied with by the appellants inasmuch as there was no dispute that M/s. Ratangiri Hathkargha and Subham Hathkargha were registered co-op, societies. He submits that the limited issue which remained was about the payment of the amount by cheque drawn on the account of the registered co-op, society. He submits that M/s. Shree Bhawani Textiles wanted the money urgently and insisted that the payment should be made by both either by Pay Order or Demand Draft. He submitted that the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur was their bank which has certified that the Pay Order/Demand Draft were issued by them against payment by cheque by the registered co-op, society on their own account. He submits that there are a number of decisions of this Tribunal in which it has been held that payment by Pay Order/Demand Draft procured by issue of cheque on their own account is substantial compliance for payment by cheque under Notification No. 53/91, dated 25-7-1991. Ld. Chartered Accountant cited and relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Aska Spinning Mills reported in 1999 (106) E.L.T. 418. In the case of Baripada Spg. Mills v. C.C.E., Bhubaneswar reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 687 and in the case of C.C.E., Jaipur v. Modern Syntax (India) Ltd. reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 714. Ld. Chartered Accountant therefore, submits that insofar as payment by Demand Draft/Pay Order is concerned, their case is fully covered by the decisions of this Tribunal as stated above. He therefore, prays that the appeals may be allowed.
4. Shri R.S. Sangia, ld. DR replying to the contention of the appellants submits that it was a case not only of non-payment by cheque but certain other points also were involved. He submits that the appellants after getting yarn from Shree Bhawani Textiles transferred that yarn to powerloom owners and sometime sold the yarn as such. He submits that there is sufficient evidence on paper to show that the societies were registered as co-op, societies on paper only. He, therefore, submits that the conditions of the Notification and the intention behind that notification granting exemption were not fulfilled and therefore, the authorities below have rightly imposed penalties on the appellants. He, therefore, prays that the appeals may be rejected.
5. On a careful consideration of the submissions made before us, we note that the only dispute was about payment of the amount by Demand Draft/Pay Order. We note that identical issue under the very same notification came for decision before this Tribunal in the cases cited above and this Tribunal in those cases held that payment by Demand Draft/Pay Order is substantial compliance if the Pay Order/Demand Draft were obtained by issue of cheque on the account of registered co-op, society maintained in the Bank. We note that facts in the present case are identical to those taken into consideration by the Tribunal in those orders. Insofar as sale or subsequent transactions in the yarn are concerned, we note that these are not specified conditions of the Notification. We, therefore, hold that the conditions under Notification No. 53/91, dated 25-7-1991 were fully complied by the appellants. In the circumstances and following the ratio of the decisions of this Tribunal in the cases cited above, we hold that the benefit was rightly claimed and taken. In the circumstances, the appeals are allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.