Ama Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Ama Chemicals vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jul 28, 2000

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/18764

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/18764
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Jul 28, 2000
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ama Chemicals

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2000)(122)ELT238Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....and taking into account that there is no condition in the notification that the benefit of notification is only available for the product or products specified in the certificate issued by this appropriate authority, this point has to be decided in favour of the appellant. the departmental representative's contention that the appellant continued clearing in terms of the notification this commodity without paying duty despite this being disapproved in the classification list filed by it, is answered by the advocate for the appellant who says that this disapproval was only communicated shortly before the officer visited the factory. if the appellant was entitled to the benefit according to law, the fact that no appeal was filed within the time against the order of the asstt. collector denying the benefit (which is by no means established) itself cannot take away the benefit. we are here concerned with the consequences of the appellant's action in clearing the goods in terms of the notification and that is available to it. the remaining question, the liability to duty on account of clandestine clearances and penalty is not questioned by the appellant. the duty involved on this count, is rs. 1,11,000/-. the notice to show cause and order are not clear on whether penalty has been imposed on this contravention but also with regard to incorrect availing of the notification as was alleged. whichever way one looks at it the duty now determined to be payable is slightly in excess of penalty of rs. 1 lakh under section 173q(1) appears to us to be excessive. we hence reduce the penalty to rs. 20,000/-.

Full Judgment

1. The first two questions for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility for the exemption under Notification 175/86 of benzidine dihydrochloride manufactured by the appellant. The benefit has been denied on the ground that this product was not specified in the certificate of registration as small scale industrial unit issued to the appellant by the appropriate authority. That this product was not included in the certificate was not denied. The advocate for the applicant however contends that there is no such requirement for it. He cites the decision of the Tribunal in and circular of the Board dated 24.12.1993, reproduced in 1994 (69) E.L.T. T7.

2. In the light of the decision, and the circular of the Board and taking into account that there is no condition in the notification that the benefit of notification is only available for the product or products specified in the certificate issued by this appropriate authority, this point has to be decided in favour of the appellant. The departmental representative's contention that the appellant continued clearing in terms of the notification this commodity without paying duty despite this being disapproved in the classification list filed by it, is answered by the advocate for the appellant who says that this disapproval was only communicated shortly before the officer visited the factory. If the appellant was entitled to the benefit according to law, the fact that no appeal was filed within the time against the order of the Asstt. Collector denying the benefit (which is by no means established) itself cannot take away the benefit. We are here concerned with the consequences of the appellant's action in clearing the goods in terms of the notification and that is available to it. The remaining question, the liability to duty on account of clandestine clearances and penalty is not questioned by the appellant. The duty involved on this count, is Rs. 1,11,000/-. The notice to show cause and order are not clear on whether penalty has been imposed on this contravention but also with regard to incorrect availing of the notification as was alleged. Whichever way one looks at it the duty now determined to be payable is slightly in excess of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 173Q(1) appears to us to be excessive. We hence reduce the penalty to Rs. 20,000/-.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Ama Chemicals vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Excise