United Phosphorous Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

United Phosphorous vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 26, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/22512

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/22512
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Apr 26, 2001
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

United Phosphorous

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

.....commissioner (appeal) has confirmed the order of the deputy commissioner that the applicant is liable to pay duty non-levied of rs 4,30,22,276.18, and imposing on it an equal amount of penalty, on the ground that the technical grade pesticides manufactured by it are required to be classified under heading 29.42 of the central excise tariff.2. in his order, the deputy commissioner has held that as the supreme court had stayed the operation of the judgement of the delhi high court in pesticides mfrs and formulators association of indian 2000 (115) elt 324, he did not feel bound by it.3. the contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the stay of a judgement does not result in that judgement being extinguished or wiped out; he cites in support the judgement of the andhra pradesh high court in koduru venkata reddy vs land acquisition officer and r.d.o., kovali 1987 (67) stc 424.4. in this judgement, the high court said, "we are of the view that when a judgement of the high court is the subject matter of an appeal and the said judgement is suspended, the only effect of such suspension is that that judgement cannot be executed or implemented. but so long as the full bench judgement stands, the dicta laid down therein are binding on all courts including the single judges and division benches of this court." 5. the supreme court's order staying the operation of the order reads as follows: "heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for grant of interim relief. the operation of the impugned judgement shall stay. it is, however, clarified that this stay order shall not entitle the appellants to lay any claim for recovery of any arrears of duty on the basis of the circular, which had been struck down by the high court, as accruing till date. similarly, the question of refunding of any amount, if already recovered, from any of the members of the respondent association shall also not arise. the question with regard to arrears etc. shall be decided at the.....

Full Judgment

1. The Commissioner (Appeal) has confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner that the applicant is liable to pay duty non-levied of Rs 4,30,22,276.18, and imposing on it an equal amount of penalty, on the ground that the technical grade pesticides manufactured by it are required to be classified under heading 29.42 of the Central Excise tariff.

2. In his order, the Deputy Commissioner has held that as the Supreme Court had stayed the operation of the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Pesticides Mfrs and Formulators Association of Indian 2000 (115) ELT 324, he did not feel bound by it.

3. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the stay of a judgement does not result in that judgement being extinguished or wiped out; he cites in support the judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Koduru Venkata Reddy vs Land Acquisition Officer and R.D.O., Kovali 1987 (67) STC 424.

4. In this judgement, the High Court said, "We are of the view that when a judgement of the High Court is the subject matter of an appeal and the said judgement is suspended, the only effect of such suspension is that that judgement cannot be executed or implemented. But so long as the Full Bench judgement stands, the dicta laid down therein are binding on all Courts including the single Judges and Division Benches of this Court." 5. The Supreme Court's order staying the operation of the order reads as follows: "Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the application for grant of interim relief.

The operation of the impugned judgement shall stay. It is, however, clarified that this stay order shall not entitle the appellants to lay any claim for recovery of any arrears of duty on the basis of the circular, which had been struck down by the High Court, as accruing till date. Similarly, the question of refunding of any amount, if already recovered, from any of the members of the respondent association shall also not arise. The question with regard to arrears etc. shall be decided at the final disposal of the appeal.

Printing is dispensed with. Parties may file additional documents, if any, within 12 weeks.

6. In the light of these observations, and in compliance with the interpretation of the law by the High Court, we do not think that it would be appropriate for us to ask for any deposit. Therefore, we grant waiver of deposit of the duty and penalty, and stay their recovery.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties United Phosphorous vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Same Subject Land Acquisition