Tata Advanced Materials Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Tata Advanced Materials vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu Decided Jul 05, 1999

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16154

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/16154
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Judge: Author: S Peeran
Decided On: Jul 05, 1999
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Tata Advanced Materials

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)(66)ECC377

Excerpt

.....submits that the appellants had been declared as a sick unit under bifr and they are not in a position to pre deposit this amount as the company is facing severe financial sickness, he submits that the amount confirmed was rs. 10,40,605 out of which they have already reversed rs. 5,54,990. he also contends that the appellants have a very strong prima facie case in their favour. he stated that they manufacture containers of duty paid chassis and they clearly fell within the description of goods mentioned in notification no. 4/97 dated 1.3.97 at sl. nos. 204 & 206 as set out therein.therefore, they state that the benefit of notification ought to have been extended to them. he submits that these points were not taken into consideration by the commissioner (appeals) while disposing of the stay application. he submits that in view of financial hardship, stay in the matter could be granted and matter remanded to commissioner (appeals) for de novo consideration on merits.3. ld. dr mrs. aruna gupta submits that the amount directed was meagre and the case is an arguable one and hence they should be directed to pre-deposit the same.4. on a careful consideration of the submission, we notice that the appellants' unit has since been declared as sick under bifr, therefore they have made out a strong case on financial hardship. the appellants have already reversed duty amount of rs. 5,54,990 and, therefore, the commissioner ought to have considered the financial hardship and granted them waiver of the balance amount. therefore, we allow the stay application and take up the appeal and remand the case to commissioner (appeals) with direction to decide the case on merits. he shall decide the case on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to the appellants. thus, the appeal succeeds by way of remand.

Full Judgment

1. By this stay application and appeal, appellants challenges the Order-in-Appeal No. 550/99-CE dated 28.4.99 dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of provisions of Section 35 F of the Act of Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner has held that the stay application was disposed of vide Order-in-Original No. 342/98 dated 17/22.10.98 directing the appellants to pre-deposit Rs. 1.5 lakhs out of the total amount of Rs. 4,85,615 demanded in Order-in-Original.

As the same had not been pre-deposited, therefore he dismissed the appeal.

2. Ld. Chartered Accountant submits that the appellants had been declared as a sick unit under BIFR and they are not in a position to pre deposit this amount as the company is facing severe financial sickness, he submits that the amount confirmed was Rs. 10,40,605 out of which they have already reversed Rs. 5,54,990. He also contends that the appellants have a very strong prima facie case in their favour. He stated that they manufacture containers of duty paid chassis and they clearly fell within the description of goods mentioned in Notification No. 4/97 dated 1.3.97 at Sl. Nos. 204 & 206 as set out therein.

Therefore, they state that the benefit of Notification ought to have been extended to them. He submits that these points were not taken into consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals) while disposing of the stay application. He submits that in view of financial hardship, stay in the matter could be granted and matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration on merits.

3. Ld. DR Mrs. Aruna Gupta submits that the amount directed was meagre and the case is an arguable one and hence they should be directed to pre-deposit the same.

4. On a careful consideration of the submission, we notice that the appellants' unit has since been declared as sick under BIFR, therefore they have made out a strong case on financial hardship. The appellants have already reversed duty amount of Rs. 5,54,990 and, therefore, the Commissioner ought to have considered the financial hardship and granted them waiver of the balance amount. Therefore, we allow the stay application and take up the appeal and remand the case to Commissioner (Appeals) with direction to decide the case on merits. He shall decide the case on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Thus, the appeal succeeds by way of remand.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tami... Same Parties Tata Advanced Materials vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Author: S Peeran