2002 (11) TMI 652

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the amount already paid of Rs. 1.35 crore) and penalty equal to the duty. The other applications are for waiver of deposit of penalties as follows: Mehta Trading Corporation   Rs. 50 lakhs Kohinoor Trading Company M.H. Steel Corporation   Rs. 1 lakh each Loha Ispat Limited B. Melaram & Sons Ayushman Steels Ltd.   Rs. 50,000/- each 2. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., the assessee, is engaged in the manufacture of steel castings. For this purpose, it acquires scrap, mills laid sown in its induction furnace and utilises the molten metal for casting of the goods in question. It had based orders on various dealers for supply of cold-rolled cold annealed steel (CRCA) for utilisation under furnace. The scrap was supplied....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n to have been paid on such scrap. Prima facie the Commissioner has been unable to show any conscious involvement by the assessee or knowledge in any substitution. The departmental representative was unable to emphasise that the scrap that the assessee received was not CRCA scrap; among the scrap that was found in the premises was one umbrella handle; among the suppliers of the scrap to the assessee is B. Melaram & Sons who makes ships and sells such scrap. These facts may prima facie suggest that the assessee received at least some quantity of scrap other than duty paid scrap. However, as we have noted, there is nothing to show its conscious involvement, and the fact that the Commissioner has specifically found that none of the employees o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....laying the proceedings asking for documents. The fact remains however that the show cause notice listed 62 documents including various files, registers, etc., copies of none of which were supplied to any of the noticee and that they unnecessarily approached the Assistant Commissioner for inspection. The letter dated 20th September, 2000 of the Assistant Commissioner to the applicant indicates supply of some of the documents. We, therefore, find prima facie merit in the contention that this applicant was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard on its case. The contention of the Advocate for M.H. Steel Corporation and Kohinoor Trading Company is that there is nothing to show that it changed the nature of the scrap that it received. Th....