Carrier Aircon Ltd. Vs. Cc

Carrier Aircon Ltd. vs Cc

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 23, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/28093

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/28093
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S Kang, a T V.K.
Decided On: Apr 23, 2002
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

Carrier Aircon Ltd.

Respondent

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(105)LC143Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the commissioner of customs. the appellants were not contesting the demand of duty. they were only contesting penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority.3. contention of the appellants is that the penalty under section 114a of the customs act cannot be imposed in view of the provisions of section 3(3) of custom tariff act. the appellants relied upon the decision of the tribunal in the case of tarsem singh multani & sons v.commissioner of customs, amritsar .5. the tribunal in the case of tarsem singh multani (supra) after taking into consideration the decision of the delhi high court in the case of pioneer silk mills, reported in 1995 (88) elt 507 : 1998 (79) ecr 553 (del) held as under: however, we find substance in the submissions of the learned advocate that penalty under section 114a of the customs act is not imposable on them in view of the decision of the delhi high court in the case of pioneer silk mills (supra). the delhi high court held that "the term 'levy' and 'collection' in section 3(3) of the additional duty act has restricted meaning in view of use of the words 'including those relating to refund and exemptions from duty". otherwise these words are unnecessary. the high court did not find any substance in the arguments of the revenue that chapter ii of the central excise act dealing with levy of duty would be entirely applicable. the high court observed that this chapter contains provisions of offences and penalty and all the sections can hardly be said to be related to levy and collection of duty of excise. the provisions of section 3(4) of the customs tariff act are pari materia to section 3(3) of the additional duty act, 1957. the penalties imposed are, therefore, set aside. the appeal is thus, partly allowed.6. in view of above decision of the tribunal penalty imposed on the appellants is set aside, otherwise the impugned order is upheld.

Full Judgment

1. The Appellants filed this appeal against the Adjudication Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The Appellants were not contesting the demand of duty. They were only contesting penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority.

3. Contention of the Appellants is that the penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act cannot be imposed in view of the provisions of Section 3(3) of Custom Tariff Act. The Appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Tarsem Singh Multani & Sons v.Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar .

5. The Tribunal in the case of Tarsem Singh Multani (supra) after taking into consideration the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills, reported in 1995 (88) ELT 507 : 1998 (79) ECR 553 (Del) held as under: However, we find substance in the submissions of the learned Advocate that penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act is not imposable on them in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills (supra). The Delhi High Court held that "the term 'levy' and 'collection' in Section 3(3) of the Additional Duty Act has restricted meaning in view of use of the words 'including those relating to refund and exemptions from duty".

Otherwise these words are unnecessary. The High Court did not find any substance in the arguments of the Revenue that Chapter II of the Central Excise Act dealing with levy of duty would be entirely applicable. The High Court observed that this Chapter contains provisions of offences and penalty and all the Sections can hardly be said to be related to levy and collection of duty of Excise. The provisions of Section 3(4) of the Customs Tariff Act are pari materia to Section 3(3) of the Additional Duty Act, 1957. The penalties imposed are, therefore, set aside. The appeal is thus, partly allowed.

6. In view of above decision of the Tribunal penalty imposed on the Appellants is set aside, otherwise the impugned Order is upheld.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Carrier Aircon Ltd. vs Cc Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S Kang, a T V.K.