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.

M/S. Gr Engineering Works Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

M/S. Gr Engineering Works Ltd. and vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 25, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/20607

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

M/S. Gr Engineering Works Ltd. and

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

1. the issue involved in this case relates to improper removal of modvat inputs (c s pipes). the further issue relates to the non-receipt of inputs into the factory and direct movements to work site. there is a seizure of certain cs pipes also which were subsequently released provisionally. the applicants stated that they have already deposited entire duty of rs. 17,88,883/- together with interest and a sum of rs.4,80,502/- towards the penalty imposed of amount equal to duty under rule 571 (4). therefore the present application is confined to waiver of predeposit and stay its recovery for penalty of rs.75,000/-. on m/s.gr engineering works ltd. under rule 173q (1). applicant no.2 has been penalised by imposition of penalty of rs.25,000/- as he is the executive director of applicant no.1.2. on hearing both sides and having regard to the payment of the entire duty amount together with the payment of 25% of the penalty, we are of the view that no further predeposit may be called for in this case.hence we dispense with the predeposit of penalty of rs.75,000/- on applicant no.1 and rs.25,000/- on applicant no.2 during the pendency of the appeal.3. the applicants have filed written submission and have asked for stay of encashment of bank guarantees executed by them for provisional release of cs pipes and request for release of (sic). these prayers are outside the scope of section 35f of the central excise act. we therefore, decline to entertain this prayer.

Full Judgment

1. The issue involved in this case relates to improper removal of modvat inputs (C S Pipes). The further issue relates to the non-receipt of inputs into the factory and direct movements to work site. There is a seizure of certain CS Pipes also which were subsequently released provisionally. The applicants stated that they have already deposited entire duty of Rs. 17,88,883/- together with interest and a sum of Rs.4,80,502/- towards the penalty imposed of amount equal to duty under Rule 571 (4). Therefore the present application is confined to waiver of predeposit and stay its recovery for penalty of Rs.75,000/-. On M/s.

GR Engineering Works Ltd. under Rule 173Q (1). Applicant No.2 has been penalised by imposition of penalty of Rs.25,000/- as he is the Executive Director of applicant No.1.

2. On hearing both sides and having regard to the payment of the entire duty amount together with the payment of 25% of the penalty, we are of the view that no further predeposit may be called for in this case.

Hence we dispense with the predeposit of penalty of Rs.75,000/- on applicant No.1 and Rs.25,000/- on applicant No.2 during the pendency of the appeal.

3. The applicants have filed written submission and have asked for stay of encashment of bank guarantees executed by them for provisional release of CS Pipes and request for release of (SIC). These prayers are outside the scope of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. We therefore, decline to entertain this prayer.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial