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.

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Sona Synthetics

Commr. of C. Ex. vs Sona Synthetics

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 28, 2000
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/18558

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
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commr. of C. Ex.

Respondent

Sona Synthetics

Legal References

Reported In
(2001)(133)ELT756Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....india -1995 (85) e.l.t. 507.3. the departmental representative points out that in the light of the tribunal's order in applications e/ra-111 to 118/99, dated 9-2-2000 in cce v. subhash textiles and ors. the tribunal in the earlier order had referred the question on an identical issue to gujarat high court. we note that the reference that was made to the gujarat high court was on the basis that earlier an identical question had been referred on an order passed by that high court directing such reference. these considerations will not apply to the facts before us. the appellants before the tribunal are residents in maharashtra subject to the jurisdiction of the bombay high court. therefore the fact of the earlier reference having been made to the gujarat high court will not by itself dictate reference to be made in these matters. nevertheless, since the gujarat high court had come to an opinion that there was a question of law which was required to be referred to, and that question being identical with that arise in these proceedings we are of the view that it should be appropriate to refer the question. accordingly the following question may be referred to the bombay high court. "whether in absence of any specific penal provisions in section 3(3) of the additional duties of excise (goods of special importance) act, 1957, the provisions relating to confiscation and imposition of penalty are applicable to man-made fabrics which are 'excisable goods' finding mention in schedule to the central excise tariff act, 1985 would apply even when they are not liable to duty under that act?" 4. the registry may draw up statement of the case and send the papers to the high court.

Full Judgment

2. These applications arises out of the orders of the Tribunal holding that the appellants before it were not liable to penalty under Rule 209A for their having dealt with goods which were liable to duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. The Tribunal had applied the ratio of the Delhi High Court's judgment in Pioneer Silk Mills v. Union of India -1995 (85) E.L.T. 507.

3. The departmental representative points out that in the light of the Tribunal's order in applications E/RA-111 to 118/99, dated 9-2-2000 in CCE v. Subhash Textiles and Ors. The Tribunal in the earlier order had referred the question on an identical issue to Gujarat High Court. We note that the reference that was made to the Gujarat High Court was on the basis that earlier an identical question had been referred on an order passed by that High Court directing such reference. These considerations will not apply to the facts before us. The appellants before the Tribunal are residents in Maharashtra subject to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. Therefore the fact of the earlier reference having been made to the Gujarat High Court will not by itself dictate reference to be made in these matters. Nevertheless, since the Gujarat High Court had come to an opinion that there was a question of law which was required to be referred to, and that question being identical with that arise in these proceedings we are of the view that it should be appropriate to refer the question. Accordingly the following question may be referred to the Bombay High Court.

"Whether in absence of any specific penal provisions in Section 3(3) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, the provisions relating to confiscation and imposition of penalty are applicable to man-made fabrics which are 'excisable goods' finding mention in Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 would apply even when they are not liable to duty under that Act?" 4. The registry may draw up statement of the case and send the papers to the High Court.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial