Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. vs Commissioner of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jul 30, 1998
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/13997

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Eupharma Laboratories Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In
(1998)LC526Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. applications are for waiver of deposit of penalty of rs. 6.28 lakhs under rule 57-i(4) and penalties of rs. 50,000/- each on shri r.v. shah and c.a. shenoy, chairman, managing director and chief executive of the assessees.3. the penalties have been imposed following the finding that modvat credit of duty paid on inputs which were used in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products cleared without payment of duty. it is stated that the credit in question was reversed on the wrong utilisation being pointed out by the department. the fact of its reversal is not questioned. the period when credit was utilised is october 1992 to september 1993. notice has been issued on 24-6-1997. prima facie the decision of this tribunal in maruti udyog ltd. v. cce - 1998 (25) rlt 246 and others that the provisions of section 11a will not apply in cases of evasion of duty prior to its being incorporated in the statute would apply to the provisions of rule 57-i(4) with which it corresponds. while the question of penalty under rule 209a is arguable, we take note of the fact of deposit of credit duty. we, therefore, waive deposit of penalties and stay recovery.

Full Judgment

1. Applications are for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 6.28 lakhs under Rule 57-I(4) and penalties of Rs. 50,000/- each on Shri R.V. Shah and C.A. Shenoy, Chairman, Managing Director and Chief Executive of the assessees.

3. The penalties have been imposed following the finding that Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs which were used in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products cleared without payment of duty. It is stated that the credit in question was reversed on the wrong utilisation being pointed out by the department. The fact of its reversal is not questioned. The period when credit was utilised is October 1992 to September 1993. Notice has been issued on 24-6-1997. Prima facie the decision of this Tribunal in Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. CCE - 1998 (25) RLT 246 and others that the provisions of Section 11A will not apply in cases of evasion of duty prior to its being incorporated in the statute would apply to the provisions of Rule 57-I(4) with which it corresponds. While the question of penalty under Rule 209A is arguable, we take note of the fact of deposit of credit duty. We, therefore, waive deposit of penalties and stay recovery.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial