Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Fainger Leser Valve P. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Fainger Leser Valve P. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Nov 01, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/26499

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/26499
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Nov 01, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Respondent

Fainger Leser Valve P. Ltd.

Excerpt

1. the revenue has filed the above appeal against the order of the commissioner of central excise (appeals) who set aside the penalty imposed upon the assessees/respondents herein holding that there was no over drawal of money from pla because the assessees deposited the amount by demand draft which is treated at par with cash and as a guaranteed instrument.2. on hearing both sides and perusing the impugned order, i hold that no satisfactory grounds for dislodging the finding of the lower authority have been advanced before me and hence i find no reason to admit this appeal. accordingly, the appeal is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue has filed the above appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who set aside the penalty imposed upon the assessees/respondents herein holding that there was no over drawal of money from PLA because the assessees deposited the amount by Demand Draft which is treated at par with cash and as a guaranteed instrument.

2. On hearing both sides and perusing the impugned order, I hold that no satisfactory grounds for dislodging the finding of the lower authority have been advanced before me and hence I find no reason to admit this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Fainger Leser Valve P. Ltd. Same Subject Excise