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.

Beemac Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Beemac Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jul 03, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/24245

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
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Beemac Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

1. the appeal is admitted. i decline to adjourn the stay application.the ground for adjournment, that the applicant's consultant is out of station is insufficient, in the absence of any valid reason for his absence today.2. i have read the stay application and the appeal. the appeal does not question the finding of the commissioner that packing charges are includable in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the applicant.3. the duty of rs. 48,286/- has been demanded, and a penalty of rs. 4000/- imposed, in addition, on the ground that the applicant took credit without prior sanction in its modvat account of a sum equal to the rebate payable on the goods that it exported, and availed modvat credit in excess of the amounts mentioned in the invoice of the supplier of inputs. the grounds in the stay application are that the deposit of the amount would cause financial hardship and that the assistant commissioner has ignored the principles of natural justice.neither of these grounds is acceptable. no evidence of the financial hardship has been cited. the assistant commissioner records that no reply was filed to the show cause notice and no one attended the hearing.4. on merits, too, the applicant does not have a prima facie case. the question of taking credit on any rebate will not arise until that rebate is sanctioned. there is no clear averment as to how credit was taken in excess of the amount mentioned as duty in the invoice.5. having regard to these facts, i direct deposit of rs. 40,000/- within a month from the receipt of this order; thereupon i waive deposit of the remaining duty and penalty and stay their recovery.

Full Judgment

1. The appeal is admitted. I decline to adjourn the stay application.

The ground for adjournment, that the applicant's consultant is out of station is insufficient, in the absence of any valid reason for his absence today.

2. I have read the stay application and the appeal. The appeal does not question the finding of the Commissioner that packing charges are includable in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the applicant.

3. The duty of Rs. 48,286/- has been demanded, and a penalty of Rs. 4000/- imposed, in addition, on the ground that the applicant took credit without prior sanction in its modvat account of a sum equal to the rebate payable on the goods that it exported, and availed modvat credit in excess of the amounts mentioned in the invoice of the supplier of inputs. The grounds in the stay application are that the deposit of the amount would cause financial hardship and that the Assistant Commissioner has ignored the principles of natural justice.

Neither of these grounds is acceptable. No evidence of the financial hardship has been cited. The assistant Commissioner records that no reply was filed to the show cause notice and no one attended the hearing.

4. On merits, too, the applicant does not have a prima facie case. The question of taking credit on any rebate will not arise until that rebate is sanctioned. There is no clear averment as to how credit was taken in excess of the amount mentioned as duty in the invoice.

5. Having regard to these facts, I direct deposit of Rs. 40,000/- within a month from the receipt of this order; thereupon I waive deposit of the remaining duty and penalty and stay their recovery.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial