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.

Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 20, 2001
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/23923

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
MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bajaj Auto Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Legal References

Reported In
(2001)(138)ELT338Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. at the outset it is stated by the applicants that they do not contest the confirmation of duty of rs. 3,00,277.46 and what remains for decision by the bench is the justification for imposing penalty of rs. 10,000/- the case relates to clearance of remnant parts of cut sheets of mild steel as waste and scrap and it is the view of the department that these ms sheets are not waste and scrap and are nothing but ms sheets themselves. in other words, the department takes the view that what has been cleared are the inputs themselves and therefore duty of the amount indicated above is payable on such clearance.2. on hearing both sides and nothing that the authorities below have not given any reasons as to why penalty is called for in the present case and also nothing that there was considerable doubt in the matter as to whether the cut sheets could be considered as waste and scrap, which doubt was settled by the decision of the tribunal in their own case reported in 1995 (75) elt 382 (date of the order is 12.10.94, we agree with the appellant that no penalty is called for. we therefore set aside the same.

Full Judgment

1. At the outset it is stated by the applicants that they do not contest the confirmation of duty of Rs. 3,00,277.46 and what remains for decision by the bench is the justification for imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- The case relates to clearance of remnant parts of cut sheets of Mild Steel as waste and scrap and it is the view of the department that these MS sheets are not waste and scrap and are nothing but MS sheets themselves. In other words, the department takes the view that what has been cleared are the inputs themselves and therefore duty of the amount indicated above is payable on such clearance.

2. On hearing both sides and nothing that the authorities below have not given any reasons as to why penalty is called for in the present case and also nothing that there was considerable doubt in the matter as to whether the cut sheets could be considered as waste and scrap, which doubt was settled by the decision of the Tribunal in their own case reported in 1995 (75) ELT 382 (date of the order is 12.10.94, we agree with the appellant that no penalty is called for. We therefore set aside the same.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial