Kopran Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Kopran Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 10, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/22033

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/22033
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Apr 10, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kopran Limited

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

1. the application is for waiver of deposit of duty of rs. 10.92 lakhs and penalty of rs. 2.73 lakhs. duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the view that the goods tendered for export by the applicant were not, as claimed by it, patent or proprietary medicaments but other medicaments classifiable under heading 3003.20 of the central excise tariff carrying nil rate of duty and hence modvat credit could not be taken of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture.2. the representative of the applicant relies upon an earlier stay order of the tribunal passed in its own case in application e/stay-830/98-bom in appeal e/1111/98-bom. the departmental representative says that this order of the tribunal has not taken note of the supreme court's judgement in astra pharmaceuticals vs. cce 1995 (75) elt 214 in coming to its conclusion that the manufacturer, in classifying its product proceeded on its understanding of law as laid down by the tribunal. on reading the order, we find that the tribunal has taken note of the supreme court judgement.3. therefore, we accept the offer made by the representative of the applicant to deposit, as a demonstration of its bona fides, rs. 2.5 lakhs. on such deposit being made within a month from today, we waive deposit of the remaining amounts of duty and penalty and stay their recovery.

Full Judgment

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 10.92 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 2.73 lakhs. Duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the view that the goods tendered for export by the applicant were not, as claimed by it, patent or proprietary medicaments but other medicaments classifiable under heading 3003.20 of the Central Excise tariff carrying nil rate of duty and hence modvat credit could not be taken of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture.

2. The representative of the applicant relies upon an earlier stay order of the Tribunal passed in its own case in application E/Stay-830/98-Bom in appeal E/1111/98-Bom. The Departmental representative says that this order of the Tribunal has not taken note of the Supreme Court's judgement in Astra Pharmaceuticals Vs. CCE 1995 (75) ELT 214 in coming to its conclusion that the manufacturer, in classifying its product proceeded on its understanding of law as laid down by the Tribunal. On reading the order, we find that the Tribunal has taken note of the Supreme Court judgement.

3. Therefore, we accept the offer made by the representative of the applicant to deposit, as a demonstration of its bona fides, Rs. 2.5 lakhs. On such deposit being made within a month from today, we waive deposit of the remaining amounts of duty and penalty and stay their recovery.

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