M/S. Spl Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

M/S. Spl Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 18, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/23177

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/23177
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: May 18, 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

M/S. Spl Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

1, this is an appeal against the decision of the commissioner (appeals) ahmedabad made in order-in-appeal no. 481/2000 dat. 1.5.2000 dismissing the appeal of the assessee. in paragraphs 5 of the impugned order it is stated as follows: "however, as regards the other ground, i find that the appellants have no case, as they have failed to produce any evidence that the goods in question were received by them in their factory at kadi. the bill of entry is in the name of their unit at rohtak and in such cases, there is a need to endorse the bill of entry showing that the entire consignment covered under the respective bill of entry is transferred to the other unit, at kadi unit in the present case. there is no evidence available on record to verify this fact and therefore, i have to accept the findings of the lower authority that there is no declaration or intimation with the department about the transfer of consignment from rohtak to kadi. so far as the contentions of the appellants that the demand is time barred, i find that the provisions u/r 571 has been amended by notfn. n.11/95-ce(nt) dt. 16.3.95 and the "relevant date" for computing the period of six months is the date of filing of return in the succeeding month, therefore, in the present case, the credit has been taken in march 1995, the return to be filed by 5th of april 95 and counting six months from 5.4.95, the notice has been issued within time".i do not think the main plea of the assessee before me as that it is barred by limitation the matter is not repetitive in nature. in exercise of the powers given to me under second proviso to section 35b of the central excise act, i decline to interfere the order and i dismiss the appeal.2. in view thereof stay petition also stands disposed of.(pronounced in court)

Full Judgment

1, This is an appeal against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) Ahmedabad made in Order-in-Appeal No. 481/2000 dat. 1.5.2000 dismissing the appeal of the assessee. In paragraphs 5 of the impugned order it is stated as follows: "However, as regards the other ground, I find that the appellants have no case, as they have failed to produce any evidence that the goods in question were received by them in their factory at Kadi.

The bill of entry is in the name of their unit at Rohtak and in such cases, there is a need to endorse the bill of entry showing that the entire consignment covered under the respective bill of entry is transferred to the other unit, at Kadi unit in the present case.

There is no evidence available on record to verify this fact and therefore, I have to accept the findings of the lower authority that there is no declaration or intimation with the department about the transfer of consignment from Rohtak to Kadi. So far as the contentions of the appellants that the demand is time barred, I find that the provisions u/r 571 has been amended by Notfn.

N.11/95-CE(NT) dt. 16.3.95 and the "relevant date" for computing the period of six months is the date of filing of return in the succeeding month, therefore, in the present case, the credit has been taken in March 1995, the return to be filed by 5th of April 95 and counting six months from 5.4.95, the notice has been issued within time".

I do not think the main plea of the assessee before me as that it is barred by limitation the matter is not repetitive in nature. In exercise of the powers given to me under second proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, I decline to interfere the order and I dismiss the appeal.

2. In view thereof stay petition also stands disposed of.(Pronounced in Court)

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties M/S. Spl Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Same Subject Land Acquisition