Pressure Sensitive Systems India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Pressure Sensitive Systems India vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

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

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25587

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/25587
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Sep 11, 2001
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pressure Sensitive Systems India

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

.....and not the textile material coated with adhesive based on rubber. hence the question of rubber content and weight per square meter does not arise." however the adjudicating authority has relied upon dy. chief chemist report dt. 13.8.93 giving the weight per square meter and percentage of rubber in the samples to hold that since rubber does not predominate the benefit of notification is not available since, the notification requires not only that the goods should fall under heading 59.05 but also that the rubberised textile fabrics do not weigh more than 1500 gms. per sq. meters and in which rubber predominates by weight. it is the contention of the assessees that this document i.e. the report dt. 13.8.93 which has been used against them by the authorities below was never disclosed to them.we find that there is substance in the submission of the assessees.since order entirely relied upon the report of the dy. chief chemist which the appellants rightly contend that was not given to them (this (sic) has been made both before the commissioner (appeals) as well as tribunal in the memorandum of appeal.). we are of the view that the impugned order requires to be set aside and the matter sent back for fresh consideration to the assistant commissioner, who shall pass orders after extending reasonable opportunity to the appellant. we order accordingly.

Full Judgment

1. For reasons recorded below we waive predeposit of duty of Rs. 2,61,657.29 confirmed on Rubberised Textile Fabrics falling under sub-heading 5905.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 on the ground that the benefit of Notification No. 5/87 is not availed to the goods, and the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon the assessees and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.

In this case show cause notice was issued to the assessee on the basis of Chemical Examiner's Report dt. 23.2.94 stating that "samples ----- are Textile material coated with Rubber Based Adhesive. These are not rubberised textile fabrics Notification No. 5/87 dt. 15.1.87 covers only Rubberised Textile Fabrics and not the Textile material coated with adhesive based on Rubber. Hence the question of rubber content and weight per square meter does not arise." However the adjudicating authority has relied upon Dy. Chief Chemist report dt. 13.8.93 giving the weight per square meter and percentage of rubber in the samples to hold that since rubber does not predominate the benefit of Notification is not available since, the Notification requires not only that the goods should fall under heading 59.05 but also that the rubberised textile fabrics do not weigh more than 1500 gms. per sq. meters and in which rubber predominates by weight. It is the contention of the assessees that this document i.e. the report dt. 13.8.93 which has been used against them by the authorities below was never disclosed to them.

We find that there is substance in the submission of the assessees.

Since order entirely relied upon the report of the Dy. Chief Chemist which the appellants rightly contend that was not given to them (this (sic) has been made both before the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal in the memorandum of appeal.). We are of the view that the impugned order requires to be set aside and the matter sent back for fresh consideration to the Assistant Commissioner, who shall pass orders after extending reasonable opportunity to the appellant. We order accordingly.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Pressure Sensitive Systems India vs Commissioner of Central E... Same Subject Land Acquisition