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.

Rishiroop Rubber Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Rishiroop Rubber vs Commissioner of Central Excise and

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 23, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/22410

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
Customs

Case Summary

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

Customs

Key legal issue
Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rishiroop Rubber

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise and

Excerpt

1. the application is for waiver of deposit of duty of rs. 6.60 lakhs and penalty of rs. 10,000/-.2. the applicant, a 100% export oriented unit, imported chemicals and synthetic rubber which are its raw materials, without payment of duty in terms of notification 18/81. the duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the finding of the commissioner that the applicant removed without payment of duty as provided in the notification the steel drums in which such raw material was packed.3. among the various contentions that the advocate for the applicant raised two are prima facie attractive at this stage. the first is that the unit being a custom house bonded warehouse, issues and removal of the goods could not take place without the physical presence of the customs officer posted therein. the warehouse is under a double lock system, one lock being perated by the officer and the other by the manufacturer. the second is that the value taken of rs. 300/- per drum is excessive. the drums became damage and corroded because of the acid used to clean them and the pervasive presence in the factory of chlorine, one of the chemicals used for manufacture. they had in fact been removed at all and become scrap. on a few earlier occasions, drums were they were sold at rs. 100/- per drum.4. the departmental representative contends that the provisions in the notification should have been given effect to.5. the commissioner in his order does not appear to have dealt with the points raised before us. prima facie these two grounds are be in the applicant's favour. in that case, the duty, if any, would be little over rs. 2 lakhs. we therefore accept the offer made by the counsel for the applicant to deposit within four weeks from the receipt of this order an amount of rs. 75,000/-. on such deposit being made, we waive deposit of the remaining amount of duty and penalty and stay its recovery.

Full Judgment

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 6.60 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.

2. The applicant, a 100% export oriented unit, imported chemicals and synthetic rubber which are its raw materials, without payment of duty in terms of notification 18/81. The duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that the applicant removed without payment of duty as provided in the notification the steel drums in which such raw material was packed.

3. Among the various contentions that the advocate for the applicant raised two are prima facie attractive at this stage. The first is that the unit being a Custom House bonded warehouse, issues and removal of the goods could not take place without the physical presence of the customs officer posted therein. The warehouse is under a double lock system, one lock being perated by the officer and the other by the manufacturer. The second is that the value taken of Rs. 300/- per drum is excessive. The drums became damage and corroded because of the acid used to clean them and the pervasive presence in the factory of chlorine, one of the chemicals used for manufacture. They had in fact been removed at all and become scrap. On a few earlier occasions, drums were they were sold at Rs. 100/- per drum.

4. The Departmental representative contends that the provisions in the notification should have been given effect to.

5. The Commissioner in his order does not appear to have dealt with the points raised before us. Prima facie these two grounds are be in the applicant's favour. In that case, the duty, if any, would be little over Rs. 2 lakhs. We therefore accept the offer made by the counsel for the applicant to deposit within four weeks from the receipt of this order an amount of Rs. 75,000/-. On such deposit being made, we waive deposit of the remaining amount of duty and penalty and stay its recovery.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial