Vistar Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Vistar Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 01, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/24783

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/24783
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Aug 01, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vistar Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

1. the appeal is against the order of the commissioner imposing a penalty under rule 173q on the appellant.2. the commissioner found that the appellant was related to inventa electronics pvt ltd, the manufacturer of excisable goods, and has held the assessable value of duty the price at which the appellant sold those goods and he has consequently imposed a penalty on the manufacturer and the appellant.3. the appeal filed by inventa electronics pvt ltd has already been dismissed for default.4. the contention of the counsel for the appellant is that even assuming the appellant to be a related person, penalty is not imposable on it under rule 173q. that rule does not apply to anyone other than a manufacturer, producer of excisable goods or a warehouse keeper. he cites the decision of the tribunal in kalsi tyres vs cce 1986 (26) elt 631 in support. the ratio of this decision is that penalty cannot be imposed on a dealer of goods under rule 173q.5. the departmental representative is not able to say why this ratio should not be applied to the facts before us. we see no reason not to follow the decision.

Full Judgment

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner imposing a penalty under Rule 173Q on the appellant.

2. The Commissioner found that the appellant was related to Inventa Electronics Pvt Ltd, the manufacturer of excisable goods, and has held the assessable value of duty the price at which the appellant sold those goods and he has consequently imposed a penalty on the manufacturer and the appellant.

3. The appeal filed by Inventa Electronics Pvt Ltd has already been dismissed for default.

4. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that even assuming the appellant to be a related person, penalty is not imposable on it under Rule 173Q. That rule does not apply to anyone other than a manufacturer, producer of excisable goods or a warehouse keeper. He cites the decision of the Tribunal in Kalsi Tyres vs CCE 1986 (26) ELT 631 in support. The ratio of this decision is that penalty cannot be imposed on a dealer of goods under Rule 173Q.5. The departmental representative is not able to say why this ratio should not be applied to the facts before us. We see no reason not to follow the decision.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Vistar Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Excise