Karan Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Karan Engineers (P) Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Mar 08, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/27791

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/27791
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, a T V.K.
Decided On: Mar 08, 2002
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Karan Engineers (P) Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(104)LC215Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals).2. brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of automobile parts and they were availing the benefit of modvat credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of their final product. appellants are also getting their semi-finished goods job-work done from their job workers under rule 57f(4) of central excise rules. show cause notice was issued to the appellants demanding duty in respect of scrap of iron and steel generated at job workers' place which was not received back by the appellants. the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of rs. 65,081.25 and imposed a penalty of rs. one lakh.3. the appellants filed appeal and the commissioner (appeals), in the impugned order, upheld the demand of duty and reduced the penalty amount to rs. 65,081.00.5. appellants are not contesting the demand of duty. they are only requesting for reduction in penalty. the contention of the appellants is that as per provisions of section 11ac of the act, penalty of the amount equal to the amount of demand was imposed. their contention is that there is no intention of the appellants to evade payment of duty.the appellants were paying duty in respect of scrap, generated at their job-workers place on estimate basis and on asking the revenue, the appellants produced their records and nothing had been concealed therefrom with the intention to evade payment of duty.6. in the present case, appellants are not contesting the duty.therefore, the impugned order, in respect of duty is upheld. taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we find a penalty of rs. 30,000.00 will meet the ends of justice. the penalty is reduced to rs. 30,000.00, otherwise, the impugned order is upheld.

Full Judgment

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of automobile parts and they were availing the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of their final product. Appellants are also getting their semi-finished goods job-work done from their job workers under Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants demanding duty in respect of scrap of iron and steel generated at job workers' place which was not received back by the appellants. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 65,081.25 and imposed a penalty of Rs. one lakh.

3. The appellants filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, upheld the demand of duty and reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 65,081.00.

5. Appellants are not contesting the demand of duty. They are only requesting for reduction in penalty. The contention of the appellants is that as per provisions of Section 11AC of the Act, penalty of the amount equal to the amount of demand was imposed. Their contention is that there is no intention of the appellants to evade payment of duty.

The appellants were paying duty in respect of scrap, generated at their job-workers place on estimate basis and on asking the revenue, the appellants produced their records and nothing had been concealed therefrom with the intention to evade payment of duty.

6. In the present case, appellants are not contesting the duty.

Therefore, the impugned order, in respect of duty is upheld. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we find a penalty of Rs. 30,000.00 will meet the ends of justice. The penalty is reduced to Rs. 30,000.00, otherwise, the impugned order is upheld.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Karan Engineers (P) Ltd. vs Cce Same Subject Excise Same Judge S Kang, a T V.K.