Royal Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Royal Agencies vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 18, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25775

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/25775
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Sep 18, 2001
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Royal Agencies

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

1. the above appeal has been filed against the imposition of penalty on the appellant who is the purchaser of man made fabrics processed by m/s. sgs synthetics on whom the duty demand has been confirmed, in addition to the imposition of a penalty.2. the submission of the appellant that penalty is not sustainable in view of the fact that there are no penal provisions in the additional duties of excise (goods of special importance) act 1957 under which the duty has been confirmed, requires to be accepted in view of the delhi high court judgment in the case of m/s. pioneer silk mills reported in 1995(80elt 507) which has been followed by the tribunal in the case of syntex processors.3. therefore, we set aside the penalty imposed upon the appellant herein and allow the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The above appeal has been filed against the imposition of penalty on the appellant who is the purchaser of man made fabrics processed by M/s. SGS Synthetics on whom the duty demand has been confirmed, in addition to the imposition of a penalty.

2. The submission of the appellant that penalty is not sustainable in view of the fact that there are no penal provisions in the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act 1957 under which the duty has been confirmed, requires to be accepted in view of the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of M/s. Pioneer Silk Mills reported in 1995(80ELT 507) which has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of Syntex Processors.

3. Therefore, we set aside the penalty imposed upon the appellant herein and allow the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Royal Agencies vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Same Subject Criminal