Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Apte Amalgamations Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Apte Amalgamations Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 24, 2001
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25882

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Apte Amalgamations Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Excerpt

1. the representative of the applicant contends that duty of rs. 3.75 crores approx., penalty of equal amount are payable.the duty has been demanded and penalty imposed, on the finding of the commissioner that the applicant was not entitled to the benefit of notification 203/92 for the reason that modvat credit was availed of in the manufacture of exported product.2. the representative of the applicant contends that the entire amount has been paid. the amount of credit has been repaid and the applicant is entitled to the amnesty scheme. however the letter of the applicant to the commissioner itself indicates that only part has been paid.prima facie therefore merits of the case are against the applicant.however on the ground of financial hardship since the applicant is closed and has incurred losses of rs. 14 crores in the period from 1998, we waive deposit of the duty and penalty and stay their recovery.

Full Judgment

1. The representative of the applicant contends that duty of Rs. 3.75 crores approx., penalty of equal amount are payable.The duty has been demanded and penalty imposed, on the finding of the Commissioner that the applicant was not entitled to the benefit of notification 203/92 for the reason that modvat credit was availed of in the manufacture of exported product.

2. The representative of the applicant contends that the entire amount has been paid. The amount of credit has been repaid and the applicant is entitled to the amnesty scheme. However the letter of the applicant to the Commissioner itself indicates that only part has been paid.

Prima facie therefore merits of the case are against the applicant.

However on the ground of financial hardship since the applicant is closed and has incurred losses of Rs. 14 crores in the period from 1998, we waive deposit of the duty and penalty and stay their recovery.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial