Mukund Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Mukund Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 04, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/21978

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/21978
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Apr 04, 2001
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mukund Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

1. the application is for waiver of deposit of duty of rs 1,00,537.53 and a penalty of rs 10,000/-.2. the duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed for the reason that the applicant, located in kurla, took credit of the duty paid on a bill of entry filed for clearing goods imported by its unit in kalwe. the contention of the counsel for the applicant that the company' purchase office was located the group's office was located at kurla is not found in the application or appeal. the decisions of the tribunal that he cites relate to cases where bill of entry show the registered office of the manufacture and the goods were utilised in a factory at different location. whether these decisions would apply to the facts of the case has to be determined.3. in these circumstances, i waive deposit of the duty and penalty and stay their recovery, subject to the condition that the applicant undertakes to keep unutilised in its rg23c account the duty that has been demanded during the pendency of the appeal,and produced evidence to this effect on 8.6.2001.

Full Judgment

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs 1,00,537.53 and a penalty of Rs 10,000/-.

2. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed for the reason that the applicant, located in Kurla, took credit of the duty paid on a bill of entry filed for clearing goods imported by its unit in Kalwe. The contention of the counsel for the applicant that the company' purchase office was located the group's office was located at Kurla is not found in the application or appeal. The decisions of the Tribunal that he cites relate to cases where bill of entry show the registered office of the manufacture and the goods were utilised in a factory at different location. Whether these decisions would apply to the facts of the case has to be determined.

3. In these circumstances, I waive deposit of the duty and penalty and stay their recovery, subject to the condition that the applicant undertakes to keep unutilised in its RG23C account the duty that has been demanded during the pendency of the appeal,and produced evidence to this effect on 8.6.2001.

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