Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. Cce

Uniworth Textiles Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 18, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/30072

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/30072
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, a T V.K.
Decided On: Feb 18, 2003
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Uniworth Textiles Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(87)ECC211

Excerpt

.....of demand and as such it cannot be claimed on the basis of such letter that the department was aware of the fact that the appellants did not have a captive power plant. he also relied upon the decision in the case of khabros steel (india) ltd. v. cce, jaipur-1, 4. we have considered the submissions of both the sides. notification no. 53/97-cus exempts goods specified in the table below the notification from payment of duty, if used for the purpose of manufacture of articles for export out of india. fuel for captive power plant is one of the goods mentioned in the table below the notification. as, admittedly, the fuel was not used by the appellants in captive power plant as it was given to uniworth ltd.., the commissioner had rightly denied the benefit of exemption contained in the notification. the similar views have been expressed by the tribunal in the case of uniworth textile wherein it was held that "entitlement of duty free import of fuel for power plant would lie with the owner of the captive power plant and not consumers of electricity from that power plant.....notification cannot be interpreted so as to provide for import of unlimited quantity of furnace oil or fuel by any e.o.u. for supply to power plant of other manufacturers." the appellants have also not brought on record any material in support of their contention that the department was aware of the fact that the appellants did not have the captive power plant. in view of this the demand cannot be held to be hit by time limit. the amount of penalty imposed is only rs. 50,000 in a matter which involves duty amount of rs. 24.55 lakhs and as such penalty imposed on the appellants is not excessive at all. accordingly we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Uniworth Textile Limited, is whether the benefit of Notification No. 53/97-Cus dated 3.6.97 is available to them in respect of Furnace Oil purchased by them from Coastal Wartsila Petroleum Ltd. 2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, fairly mentioned that the issue involved in the present matter has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Uniworth Textile v. CCE, Raipur, 2003 (54) RLT 512 (CEGAT) and as such benefit of Notification No. 53/97-Cus is not available to the Appellants. He, however, submitted that the demand of duty is barred by limitation as the show cause notice was issued on 2.8.2001 by demanding the duty for the period January/February, 2001; that the Department was aware that the Appellants do not have power plant and as such the furnace oil could not have been used by them captively; that this is evident from the letter dated 17.7.2001 of Asst. Development Commissioner, N.E.P.Z., addressed to the Asst.

Commissioner, Central Excise, Urla.

3. Countering the submission Shri R.D. Negi, learned SDK, submitted that the letter referred to by the learned Advocate is dated 17.7.2001 which is much after the period of demand and as such it cannot be claimed on the basis of such letter that the Department was aware of the fact that the Appellants did not have a captive power plant. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Khabros Steel (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-1, 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Notification No. 53/97-Cus exempts goods specified in the table below the notification from payment of duty, if used for the purpose of manufacture of articles for export out of India. Fuel for captive power plant is one of the goods mentioned in the table below the notification. As, admittedly, the fuel was not used by the Appellants in captive power plant as it was given to Uniworth Ltd.., the Commissioner had rightly denied the benefit of exemption contained in the Notification. The similar views have been expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Uniworth Textile wherein it was held that "entitlement of duty free import of fuel for power plant would lie with the owner of the captive power plant and not consumers of electricity from that power plant.....Notification cannot be interpreted so as to provide for import of unlimited quantity of Furnace Oil or Fuel by any E.O.U. for supply to power plant of other manufacturers." The Appellants have also not brought on record any material in support of their contention that the Department was aware of the fact that the Appellants did not have the captive power plant. In view of this the demand cannot be held to be hit by time limit. The amount of penalty imposed is only Rs. 50,000 in a matter which involves duty amount of Rs. 24.55 lakhs and as such penalty imposed on the Appellants is not excessive at all. Accordingly we find no reason to interfere with the impugned Order and the appeal is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Uniworth Textiles Ltd. vs Cce Same Subject Excise Same Judge S Kang, a T V.K.