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.

Sharp Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Sharp Engineers vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 03, 1999
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16374

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
Judge
Decided On
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

Sharp Engineers

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(2000)(67)ECC628

Excerpt

1. this application for early hearing was argued by shri r.k. ghadge, consultant. shri k.l. ramteke appeared for the revenue.2. in the impugned order the commissioner directed that the interest on deposit taken by the assessees be added to the assessable value. the commissioner refuted the suggestion that these deposits were in the nature of security. the commissioner referred the issue back to the assistant commissioner for re-quantification of the amount giving certain instructions in the situation in which the interest was not to be added to the assessable value. in this situation at this stage there is no pecuniary liability on the appellants. shri ghadge however informs us that as soon as the assistant commissioner passed the order, they have deposited the amount quantified by him. one of the reasons cited for early hearing is that this financial burden is upon them. the second reason advanced is that on the same grounds more demands have been made. shri ghadge fairly admits that the law laid down by the supreme court as to the necessity of nexus being established between the factum of charging interest and the compilation of assessable value was not brought out before the commissioner. we observe that this argument can now be taken by them before the asst. commissioner.3. we find that the assessees are themselves responsible for the situation they have put themselves into. we do not find any reason for granting them out of turn hearing and dismiss this application.

Full Judgment

1. This application for early hearing was argued by Shri R.K. Ghadge, Consultant. Shri K.L. Ramteke appeared for the Revenue.

2. In the impugned order the Commissioner directed that the interest on deposit taken by the assessees be added to the assessable value. The Commissioner refuted the suggestion that these deposits were in the nature of security. The Commissioner referred the issue back to the Assistant Commissioner for re-quantification of the amount giving certain instructions in the situation in which the interest was not to be added to the assessable value. In this situation at this stage there is no pecuniary liability on the appellants. Shri Ghadge however informs us that as soon as the Assistant Commissioner passed the order, they have deposited the amount quantified by him. One of the reasons cited for early hearing is that this financial burden is upon them. The second reason advanced is that on the same grounds more demands have been made. Shri Ghadge fairly admits that the law laid down by the Supreme Court as to the necessity of nexus being established between the factum of charging interest and the compilation of assessable value was not brought out before the Commissioner. We observe that this argument can now be taken by them before the Asst. Commissioner.

3. We find that the assessees are themselves responsible for the situation they have put themselves into. We do not find any reason for granting them out of turn hearing and dismiss this application.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial