Lata Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Lata Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 23, 2000

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/19212

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/19212
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T Gowri, J Srinivasamurthy
Decided On: Sep 23, 2000
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

Lata Industries

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2001)(73)ECC153

Excerpt

1. the application is for waiver of deposit of duty of rs. 13,457 and penalty imposed on the applicant.2. the duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the view of the asst. commissioner confirmed by the commissioner (appeals). benefit of notification 175/86 will not be available consequent upon its amendment by notification 55/92.4. the effect of the amendment was that the manufacturer who availed of the benefit in terms of clause (a) of paragraph 4 would no longer be entitled to the benefit if it did not produce small scale registration.the contention of the applicant is that it availed of benefit under clause (b) of paragraph 4.5. the declaration filed by the applicant to first avail of the notification was in 1991-92. this would only be under clause (a) of paragraph 4. there is nothing to show that the applicant availed of this notification in any of the preceding years.6. we therefore do not prima facie find a case for holding that the applicant was entitled to the exemption. we therefore direct deposit of the entire duty within two months from today. thereupon we waive deposit of the penalty imposed and stay its recovery. compliance on 27.10.2000.

Full Judgment

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 13,457 and penalty imposed on the applicant.

2. The duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the view of the Asst. Commissioner confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Benefit of Notification 175/86 will not be available consequent upon its amendment by Notification 55/92.

4. The effect of the amendment was that the manufacturer who availed of the benefit in terms of Clause (a) of paragraph 4 would no longer be entitled to the benefit if it did not produce small scale registration.

The contention of the applicant is that it availed of benefit under Clause (b) of paragraph 4.

5. The declaration filed by the applicant to first avail of the notification was in 1991-92. This would only be under Clause (a) of paragraph 4. There is nothing to show that the applicant availed of this notification in any of the preceding years.

6. We therefore do not prima facie find a case for holding that the applicant was entitled to the exemption. We therefore direct deposit of the entire duty within two months from today. Thereupon we waive deposit of the penalty imposed and stay its recovery. Compliance on 27.10.2000.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Lata Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S T Gowri, J Srinivasamurthy