Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Entel Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Entel Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 11, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25586

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/25586
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Sep 11, 2001
Subject: Miscellaneous

Case Summary

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

Miscellaneous

Key legal issue: Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Respondent

Entel Pvt. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(149)ELT545Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....and that the goods did not constitute deemed export. he confirmed the demand for duty and imposed penalty on the respondent.2. on appeal from this order, the commissioner (appeals) found that since the respondent had received payment in foreign exchange and the goods were cleared to a "deemed export customer", the buyer was to be treated as a separate class of buyer, allowed the appeal and set aside the assistant collector's order. hence this appeal.3. the ground in the appeal, that the departmental representative emphasizes, is that this is not a case of deemed export as defined in the import and export policy and that the fact that the payment was made in foreign exchange does not result in the payer becoming different class of customer. the respondent is absent and unrepresented.4. the ground in the department's appeal has to be accepted. "deemed export" is a concept in the import and export policy. for the purposes of this policy supplies made to buyers in the country are reckoned towards the fulfilment of the export obligation by the supplier. this concept has therefore no relevance to payment of duty of central excise. so also the fact price is justifiable, we are of the view that the commissioner (appeals) cannot be entertained. further, we are of the view that on the facts of the case, penalty cannot be imposed on the respondent to this appeal in the genuine belief that the buyers are of different class.5. we therefore set aside the order of the commissioner (appeals) and restore the order of the assistant collector to the extent of confirming the duty allegedly short paid.

Full Judgment

1. The respondent to this appeal sold projection television set to an organisation named India Campus Crusade for Christ, Madras at a price lower that the price at which it sold the goods to other buyers. The price list for sale of the goods was approved. However, subsequently notice was issued proposing recovery of the duty on the ground that there was no justification for sale of these goods at a lower price.

The respondent, in its reply, took the stand that it was a part of larger organisation based in the U.S.A. and the payment for the goods had been made in foreign exchange by that organisation. It also pointed out that in the light of payment had been made in foreign exchange the sale of goods constituted deemed export. Hence it was a different class of buyer. The Assistant Commissioner did not accept this plea. He held that there was no evidence that the order has been placed on the direction of the foreign organisation and that the goods did not constitute deemed export. He confirmed the demand for duty and imposed penalty on the respondent.

2. On appeal from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that since the respondent had received payment in foreign exchange and the goods were cleared to a "deemed export customer", the buyer was to be treated as a separate class of buyer, allowed the appeal and set aside the Assistant Collector's order. Hence this appeal.

3. The ground in the appeal, that the departmental representative emphasizes, is that this is not a case of deemed export as defined in the Import and Export Policy and that the fact that the payment was made in foreign exchange does not result in the payer becoming different class of customer. The respondent is absent and unrepresented.

4. The ground in the department's appeal has to be accepted. "Deemed export" is a concept in the import and export Policy. For the purposes of this Policy supplies made to buyers in the country are reckoned towards the fulfilment of the export obligation by the supplier. This concept has therefore no relevance to payment of duty of central excise. So also the fact price is justifiable, we are of the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be entertained. Further, we are of the view that on the facts of the case, penalty cannot be imposed on the respondent to this appeal in the genuine belief that the buyers are of different class.

5. We therefore set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the order of the Assistant Collector to the extent of confirming the duty allegedly short paid.

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