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.

Kalyan Agro Industries Vs. Cce

Kalyan Agro Industries vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 11, 2002
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/29091

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 Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kalyan Agro Industries

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In
(2003)(87)ECC197

Excerpt

1. this appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 11.4.2001 vide which the commissioner (appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the assistant commissioner.2. the factory premises of the appellant was visited by the central excise officers on 21.6.97. the unaccounted stock of steel ingots and runners & risers lying in the factory premises was seized. on verification of raw material 22.600 mt of scrap was found short and that fact was admitted by shri raj kumar, partner of the appellant firm. the adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand of rs. 16,634 with penalty of rs. 25,000 and also ordered confiscation of the seized goods with option to get the same redeem on deposit of rs. 16,325. that order of the adjudicating authority had been affirmed by the commissioner (appeals).3. the ld. counsel has not contested the impugned order on merits. he has prayed for the reduction in the redemption fine and the penalty on the ground that the lapse on the part of the appellants in not recording the goods in the statutory record, was not deliberate but due to heavy work. the duty liability had already been accepted and discharged by the appellants. i have gone through the records and in my view the prayer of the counsel deserves to be accepted. keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the redemption fine is reduced to rs. 15,000 and so also the penalty to that much amount i.e. rs. 15,000. except for this modification, the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) is upheld. the appeal of the appellants stands disposed of in these terms.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 11.4.2001 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner.

2. The factory premises of the appellant was visited by the Central Excise officers on 21.6.97. The unaccounted stock of steel ingots and runners & risers lying in the factory premises was seized. On verification of raw material 22.600 MT of scrap was found short and that fact was admitted by Shri Raj Kumar, partner of the appellant firm. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 16,634 with penalty of Rs. 25,000 and also ordered confiscation of the seized goods with option to get the same redeem on deposit of Rs. 16,325. That order of the adjudicating authority had been affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. The Ld. Counsel has not contested the impugned order on merits. He has prayed for the reduction in the redemption fine and the penalty on the ground that the lapse on the part of the appellants in not recording the goods in the statutory record, was not deliberate but due to heavy work. The duty liability had already been accepted and discharged by the appellants. I have gone through the records and in my view the prayer of the counsel deserves to be accepted. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 15,000 and so also the penalty to that much amount i.e. Rs. 15,000. Except for this modification, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld. The appeal of the appellants stands disposed of in these terms.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial