Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Ajanta Paper and General Products

Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Ajanta Paper and General Products

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 30, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/26420

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/26420
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Oct 30, 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

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Respondent

Ajanta Paper and General Products

Excerpt

1. the revenue has filed the above appeal against the order of the commissioner of central excise who has dropped the demand raised against the respondents herein on the ground that the demand is barred by limitation.2. on hearing both sides it is very clear that the suppression is alleged not against the respondents but by m/s. atul products, who had availed of exemption without mentioning the exemption notification number in the gate passes. the commissioner has rightly held that the department has not beeb able to establish suppression of fact with an intention to evade payment of duty against the respondents and there is nothing in the appeal memorandum to persuade me to take a different view. since the suppression is not charged against the respondents, the extended period for limitation cannot be obviously made applicable against them. therefore i agree with the commissioner that the demand raised in the show cause notice against the commissioner that the demand raised in the show cause notice against respondent is barred by (sic) uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue has filed the above appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise who has dropped the demand raised against the respondents herein on the ground that the demand is barred by limitation.

2. On hearing both sides it is very clear that the suppression is alleged not against the Respondents but by M/s. Atul Products, who had availed of exemption without mentioning the exemption Notification number in the gate passes. The Commissioner has rightly held that the department has not beeb able to establish suppression of fact with an intention to evade payment of duty against the respondents and there is nothing in the appeal memorandum to persuade me to take a different view. Since the suppression is not charged against the respondents, the extended period for limitation cannot be obviously made applicable against them. Therefore I agree with the Commissioner that the demand raised in the show cause notice against the Commissioner that the demand raised in the show cause notice against respondent is barred by (sic) uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Ajanta Paper and General P... Same Subject Land Acquisition