Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. CamlIn Ltd. (Stationery Div)

Commissioner of Central Excise, vs CamlIn Ltd. (Stationery Div)

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 15, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/20945

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/20945
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Feb 15, 2001
Subject: Intellectual Property

Case Summary

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

Intellectual Property

Key legal issue: Intellectual Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Respondent

CamlIn Ltd. (Stationery Div)

Excerpt

1. the appeal is against the order of the commissioner (appeals) holding that the order of the asst. commissioner before him is in excess of the powers specified for adjudication in circular 3/92-cx-6 dated 14.2.92 of the board and remanding the matter for adjudication.the appeal contends that this order is wrong. the board's circular, which specified monetary limits for adjudication, excluded cases of approval of price list. the demand in this case has been issued as a consequence of the approval of price list and therefore falls within this exclusion. the commissioner's order is therefore incorrect.2. the board's circular prescribed "following monetary limits for adjudication of central excise cases other than the cases relating to approval of classification and price lists." the limit for the asst.collector where duty was involved was rs. 50,000/-. there is no dispute that the duty involved in each show cause notice exceeds this amount.the asst. collector's order records that the separate price for dealers situated up to 1200km and those beyond 1200km in the price list filed by the assessee were not accepted. it goes on to say that the superintendent issued three show cause notices for recovery of duty. it is thus clear that the notices which were issued for recovery of duty were n consequence of the disapproval by the asst. collector of the claim in the price list by the assessee to have two sets of price. such a case therefore is not a case relating to approval of price list. we therefore do not find any infirmity in the commissioner (appeals)'s order.

Full Judgment

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the order of the Asst. Commissioner before him is in excess of the powers specified for adjudication in circular 3/92-CX-6 dated 14.2.92 of the Board and remanding the matter for adjudication.

The appeal contends that this order is wrong. The Board's circular, which specified monetary limits for adjudication, excluded cases of approval of price list. The demand in this case has been issued as a consequence of the approval of price list and therefore falls within this exclusion. The Commissioner's order is therefore incorrect.

2. The Board's circular prescribed "following monetary limits for adjudication of Central Excise cases other than the cases relating to approval of classification and price lists." The limit for the Asst.

Collector where duty was involved was Rs. 50,000/-. There is no dispute that the duty involved in each show cause notice exceeds this amount.

The Asst. Collector's order records that the separate price for dealers situated up to 1200km and those beyond 1200km in the price list filed by the assessee were not accepted. It goes on to say that the Superintendent issued three show cause notices for recovery of duty. It is thus clear that the notices which were issued for recovery of duty were n consequence of the disapproval by the Asst. Collector of the claim in the price list by the Assessee to have two sets of price. Such a case therefore is not a case relating to approval of price list. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise, vs CamlIn Ltd. (Stationery Div) Same Subject Intellectual Property