C. RobIn Shah and ors. Vs. Cce

C. RobIn Shah and ors. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 03, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25363

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/25363
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J T J.H., S Kang
Decided On: Sep 03, 2001
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

C. RobIn Shah and ors.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2001)(99)LC435Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....of fine indicate that the proceedings were related to the case in appeal of m/s. collins & co.shri p.s. kalve relies upon the trade notice no. 39/99 dt. 17.12.1998 issued by the commissioner of central excise, mumbai-iv in which it is said that where the show cause notices were issued on 30.3.1998 and where the principal assessees had settled the issue in kvss, the benefit would accrue to co-noticees also and says that this would apply where the appeals are lying in cegat also. we note that the show cause notice in the present proceedings was issued on 23.7.1992.2. shri p.s. kalve also shows us cegat decision . in this judgement the kerala high court judgement dated 7.3.2000 in o.p. no. 16334 of 1999 [t.k. thomas v. hoi] was followed as also the tribunal judgement no. c-i/196-197/wzb/2001 dt.23.1.2001. in these judgements the law given by the high court was that where the case was lying in appeal, the expression "is pending adjudication" would be applicable.3. following these judgements, we hold that the benefit of the satisfaction achieved by m/s. collins & co. would extend to the 5 co-noticees before us in these appeals. their appeals, therefore, abet and are dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. The Commissioner II Central Excise Mumbai-I in his order dt.

30.1.1996 (OIO No. 5/96) confirmed duty of Rs. 48,14,546.15 against M/s Collins & Co. He imposed penalty of Rs. 65 lakhs on them. He confiscated plant, building etc. but permitted their redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 15 lakhs. In this order he imposed penalties on Shri C.R. Shah partner of Collins & Co., Shri J.H. Bhagdeo Chief Accountant M/s. Bentex Marketing Corporation and M/s. SK Enterprises and on Balkrishna Khattar Director of Bentex Marketing Corporation under Rule 209A. The Corporations and individuals filed appeals. The Tribunal in an interim order dt. 17.9.1996 directed M/s. Collins & Co.

to deposit a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs as a precondition to hearing all the appeals. The deposit was made as was noted by the Tribunal on 24.2.1998. Today the appeals of the Co-noticees were listed for hearing Shri P.S. Kalve places on record the orders issued under KVSS determining the sums to be paid by M/s. Collins & Co. and also the certificate of payment and grant of immunity to M/s. Collins & Co.

Although the order does not show the show cause notice No. etc. the sums of duty payable, of penalty and of fine indicate that the proceedings were related to the case in appeal of M/s. Collins & Co.

Shri P.S. Kalve relies upon the Trade Notice No. 39/99 dt. 17.12.1998 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV in which it is said that where the show cause notices were issued on 30.3.1998 and where the principal assessees had settled the issue in KVSS, the benefit would accrue to co-noticees also and says that this would apply where the appeals are lying in CEGAT also. We note that the show cause notice in the present proceedings was issued on 23.7.1992.

2. Shri P.S. Kalve also shows us CEGAT decision . In this judgement the Kerala High Court judgement dated 7.3.2000 in O.P. No. 16334 of 1999 [T.K. Thomas v. HOI] was followed as also the Tribunal judgement No. C-I/196-197/WZB/2001 dt.

23.1.2001. In these judgements the law given by the High Court was that where the case was lying in appeal, the expression "is pending adjudication" would be applicable.

3. Following these judgements, we hold that the benefit of the satisfaction achieved by M/s. Collins & Co. would extend to the 5 co-noticees before us in these appeals. Their appeals, therefore, abet and are dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties C. RobIn Shah and ors. vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge J T J.H., S Kang