Haryana State Electronics Dev. Vs. Cce

Haryana State Electronics Dev. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 05, 1998

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/14433

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/14433
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: J Balasundaram, A T V.K.
Decided On: Oct 05, 1998
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Haryana State Electronics Dev.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)(82)LC745Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. the appellants are aggrieved by the imposition of penalty of rs. 10,000/- under rule 226 read with rule 173q of the central excise rules for violation of rule 173c read with rule 173q and rule 9(1) and 9(2) of the ce rules, 1944.1.2. the duty demand on cost of inputs supplied by m/s. bhel in the assessable value of the product (test jigs) manufactured by the appellants herein has already been paid.2. arguing on behalf of the appellants shri j.s. agarwal, ld. advocate submitted that in view of the fact that the appellants paid the duty demand even without waiting for the issue of show cause notice, there is no mala fide intention of evading payment of duty and hence the penalty imposed requires to be set aside. on the other hand the ld. dr submitted that the factor of payment before issue of notice to the manufacturer as well as to the suppliers, of course has been noted by the adjudicating authority who has imposed low penalty and therefore no interference is called for in the impugned order, particularly having regard to the fact that the appellants who is reputed manufacturer of test jigs should have had the knowledge that the cost of inputs are liable to be included in the assessable value of their final product.3. heard both sides. we are of the view that the penalty is warranted for contravention of the rules and we see force in the dr's submissions that the adjudicating authority has taken the various aspects of the case into account before imposing such low penalty. intention is not material or relevant for the purpose of rule 173c except for sub clause (d) of the rule. therefore, appellants cannot contend that no penalty can be imposed in law. however, having regard to the quantum of duty and the applicants being a government corporation we reduce the penalty to rs. 5000/-. subject to this above modification, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The Appellants are aggrieved by the imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 226 read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules for violation of Rule 173C read with Rule 173Q and Rule 9(1) and 9(2) of the CE Rules, 1944.

1.2. The duty demand on cost of inputs supplied by M/s. BHEL in the assessable value of the product (Test Jigs) manufactured by the appellants herein has already been paid.

2. Arguing on behalf of the Appellants Shri J.S. Agarwal, Ld. Advocate submitted that in view of the fact that the appellants paid the duty demand even without waiting for the issue of show cause notice, there is no mala fide intention of evading payment of duty and hence the penalty imposed requires to be set aside. On the other hand the Ld. DR submitted that the factor of payment before issue of notice to the manufacturer as well as to the suppliers, of course has been noted by the adjudicating authority who has imposed low penalty and therefore no interference is called for in the impugned order, particularly having regard to the fact that the appellants who is reputed manufacturer of test jigs should have had the knowledge that the cost of inputs are liable to be included in the assessable value of their final product.

3. Heard both sides. We are of the view that the penalty is warranted for contravention of the rules and we see force in the DR's submissions that the adjudicating authority has taken the various aspects of the case into account before imposing such low penalty. Intention is not material or relevant for the purpose of Rule 173C except for sub clause (d) of the rule. Therefore, appellants cannot contend that no penalty can be imposed in law. However, having regard to the quantum of duty and the applicants being a Government corporation we reduce the penalty to Rs. 5000/-. Subject to this above modification, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Haryana State Electronics Dev. vs Cce Same Subject Excise Same Judge J Balasundaram, A T V.K.