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.

Cipla Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Cipla Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Dec 04, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/26895

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

Cipla Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

1. the application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of rs. 5 lakhs imposed on the finding of the authorities that in its price declaration filed for determining the value of bulk drugs manufactured by it and captively consumed in their factory under rule 6(b)(ii), the applicant took account of the cost of manufacture of the previous year, which was lower than the cost of raw material.2. the contention of the counsel for the applicant is that there was no intent to evade duty since the goods were to be consumed by the applicant in another factory and whatever duty was paid in this factory would be available to it in another factory. he relied upon the decision in s.l. packaging v. cce 3. the departmental representative contends that the provisions of rule 173q(1)(a) relating to removal of excisable goods in contravention of the rules would apply to the facts of this case and therefore the intention is immaterial.4. the issues are arguable. we do not find the contention of the departmental representative prima facie entirely devoid of merit. we therefore direct the applicant to pay rs. 1 lakh towards the penalty within a month from the receipt of the order, thereupon which we waive deposit of the remaining penalty and stay its recovery.

Full Judgment

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on the finding of the authorities that in its price declaration filed for determining the value of bulk drugs manufactured by it and captively consumed in their factory under Rule 6(b)(ii), the applicant took account of the cost of manufacture of the previous year, which was lower than the cost of raw material.

2. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that there was no intent to evade duty since the goods were to be consumed by the applicant in another factory and whatever duty was paid in this factory would be available to it in another factory. He relied upon the decision in S.L. Packaging v. CCE 3. The departmental representative contends that the provisions of Rule 173Q(1)(a) relating to removal of excisable goods in contravention of the rules would apply to the facts of this case and therefore the intention is immaterial.

4. The issues are arguable. We do not find the contention of the departmental representative prima facie entirely devoid of merit. We therefore direct the applicant to pay Rs. 1 lakh towards the penalty within a month from the receipt of the order, thereupon which we waive deposit of the remaining penalty and stay its recovery.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial