Universal Medicap Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Universal Medicap Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jul 05, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/24302

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/24302
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Jul 05, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Universal Medicap Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Legal References

Reported In: (2001)(136)ELT1321Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....of usha engineers at vadodara, mr. randir consultant both of whom living at vadodara were present in court. both say that according to their experience there was no disturbance to normal life. the point is not that they are used as witnesses but then this is the general perception. specific evidence for this is also missing in the appeal totally. this contention therefore cannot be accepted.4. it is next contended that the bench has not considered the plea that the rubber stoppers were not kept ready to be entered in the rg1 register because they were required to be tested for compliance with pharmacopial requirement. the bench has in fact recorded this plea at paragraph 8 of the order and declined to accept it for the reason that evidence in support of the claim that it was a normal practice before they were entered in the rg1 register had not been produced. the appeal does not advance any such evidence. i therefore do not find any mistake in this regard.5. the third ground relates to duty of rs. 1,27,081/- demanded on the ground that there was no satisfactory account of some inputs. it is contended by counsel that the bench has not considered the plea that there was only a failure to enter the goods in the part i of the rg 23a account register. this plea again does not stand verification. the bench has recorded that there is no attempt to meet the reasoning of the commissioner that a demand for the amount is sustainable for the reason that the manufacturer had removed some inputs on which credit to this extent was taken and proper account was not maintained in this regard.

Full Judgment

1. I have heard the counsel for the applicant on the application which seeks to correct three mistakes apparent on the record.

2. The first is that the bench has not taken satisfactory note of the plea that accounts could not be maintained for the period from 1.12.99 to 30.12.99 for the reason that "situation was tense" as a result of demolition of Babri mosque at Ayodhya. The bench has recorded this plea, but there is no specific finding on it. Therefore this plea has been considered by me.

3. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that as a result of the prevailing tension following this demolition, the person who kept the account, living at Vadodara was not able to travel to Ramia about 29 km away. The counsel stated that the demolition took place on 6.12.99. He is not able to explain the failure to enter the accounts from 1st to 7th December. Again, it was put to the counsel for the applicant that the common understanding was that there was in reality no disturbance in life in or around Vadodara. Mr. Purushu of Usha Engineers at Vadodara, Mr. Randir consultant both of whom living at Vadodara were present in Court. Both say that according to their experience there was no disturbance to normal life. The point is not that they are used as witnesses but then this is the general perception. Specific evidence for this is also missing in the appeal totally. This contention therefore cannot be accepted.

4. It is next contended that the bench has not considered the plea that the rubber stoppers were not kept ready to be entered in the RG1 register because they were required to be tested for compliance with pharmacopial requirement. The bench has in fact recorded this plea at paragraph 8 of the order and declined to accept it for the reason that evidence in support of the claim that it was a normal practice before they were entered in the RG1 register had not been produced. The appeal does not advance any such evidence. I therefore do not find any mistake in this regard.

5. The third ground relates to duty of Rs. 1,27,081/- demanded on the ground that there was no satisfactory account of some inputs. It is contended by counsel that the bench has not considered the plea that there was only a failure to enter the goods in the part I of the RG 23A account register. This plea again does not stand verification. The bench has recorded that there is no attempt to meet the reasoning of the Commissioner that a demand for the amount is sustainable for the reason that the manufacturer had removed some inputs on which credit to this extent was taken and proper account was not maintained in this regard.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Universal Medicap Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Same Subject Excise