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.

C.C.E., Indore Vs. M/S. Sintex Plast Containers (P)

C.C.E., Indore vs M/S. Sintex Plast Containers (P)

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 05, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/20719

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 Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

C.C.E., Indore

Respondent

M/S. Sintex Plast Containers (P)

Legal References

Reported In
(2001)(75)ECC341

Excerpt

1. revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal, whereby the commissioner (appeals) gave a finding that no suppression can be alleged against the respondents. therefore, the demand is time-barred.2. brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of plastic tanks and were availing the benefit of small scale exemption notification. on 5.3.97, a snow cause notice was issued demanding duty for the period from 94-95 on intermediate product i.e.plastic powder/moulding power on the ground that the respondents had not declared this product in their classification list and the extended period of limitation under sec. 11a of the act was invoked.3. dy. commissioner confirmed the demand and in appeal filed by the respondents, the commissioner (appeals), vide impugned order, held that the demand is time-barred as the respondents, from time to time, fixed the declarations explaining their manufacturing process to the revenue.5. the contention of the revenue is that it is mandatory for the respondents to declare their excisable goods in their classification list. as the respondents had not declared their intermediate product, the finding of the commissioner (appeals) that the demand is time barred, is set aside.6. the respondents filed necessary declarations for availing the benefit of small scale exemption and along with these declarations they explained the manufacturing process and while explaining the manufacture process they specifically mentioned that the material is processed, pulverised and converted into powder form after getting the pulverised power and the material is used for manufacture of water storage tanks. the declarations were filed don 4.2.93 and 15.4.93 with the revenue. at the time of registration of their unit with the revenue authority on 8.12.93, the same process was also submitted to the supdt.(ce.). as the respondents in their declarations declared the process of manufacture of goods manufacture, it cannot be.....

Full Judgment

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) gave a finding that no suppression can be alleged against the respondents. Therefore, the demand is time-barred.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of plastic tanks and were availing the benefit of small scale exemption notification. On 5.3.97, a snow cause notice was issued demanding duty for the period from 94-95 on intermediate product i.e.

plastic powder/moulding power on the ground that the respondents had not declared this product in their classification list and the extended period of limitation under Sec. 11A of the Act was invoked.

3. Dy. Commissioner confirmed the demand and in appeal filed by the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals), vide impugned order, held that the demand is time-barred as the respondents, from time to time, fixed the declarations explaining their manufacturing process to the revenue.

5. The contention of the revenue is that it is mandatory for the respondents to declare their excisable goods in their classification list. As the respondents had not declared their intermediate product, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the demand is time barred, is set aside.

6. The respondents filed necessary declarations for availing the benefit of small scale exemption and along with these declarations they explained the manufacturing process and while explaining the manufacture process they specifically mentioned that the material is processed, pulverised and converted into powder form after getting the pulverised power and the material is used for manufacture of water storage tanks. The declarations were filed don 4.2.93 and 15.4.93 with the revenue. At the time of registration of their unit with the revenue authority on 8.12.93, the same process was also submitted to the Supdt.

(CE.). As the respondents in their declarations declared the process of manufacture of goods manufacture, it cannot be alleged that there was suppression or willful mis-declaration by the respondents with intent to evade payment of duty. In view of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is rejected. (Dictated in Court).

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial