Silwester Textiles P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Silwester Textiles P. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 25, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/30397

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/30397
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: K Kumar, S T C.
Decided On: Mar 25, 2003
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

Silwester Textiles P. Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

1. none appeared for the respondents. we have heard shri s.s. bhagat, learned s.d.r.2. the appellants initially paid half a month's duty for the period 16/12/1998 to 31/12/1998. subsequently, they paid an amount of rs. 35,484/- which was the duty for one extra day alongwith interest of rs. 2,170/- after a delay of 62 days on 08/03/1999. on appeal, the commissioner (appeals) decided that payment of half a month's duty for the period in question was in order and the appellants were not required to pay an extra day's duty.3. consequently, the refund claim was sanctioned by the dy.commissioner of the extra day's duty and interest amount of rs. 37,655/-. on department's appeal, the commissioner (appeals) has dis-allowed the refund on the ground of unjust enrichment, since the appellants have not been able to establish that the said amount was not passed on to the customers.4. in view of the fact that the extra duty with interest was paid later on at the instance of the department, it is clear that the appellants could not have passed on the duty benefit to their customers at the time of the clearance of the goods. as such, we set aside the impugned order and restore the order in original passed by the dy. commissioner with consequential benefit to the appellants.

Full Judgment

1. None appeared for the respondents. We have heard Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned S.D.R.2. The appellants initially paid half a month's duty for the period 16/12/1998 to 31/12/1998. Subsequently, they paid an amount of Rs. 35,484/- which was the duty for one extra day alongwith interest of Rs. 2,170/- after a delay of 62 days on 08/03/1999. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) decided that payment of half a month's duty for the period in question was in order and the appellants were not required to pay an extra day's duty.

3. Consequently, the refund claim was sanctioned by the Dy.

Commissioner of the extra day's duty and interest amount of Rs. 37,655/-. On department's appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dis-allowed the refund on the ground of unjust enrichment, since the appellants have not been able to establish that the said amount was not passed on to the customers.

4. In view of the fact that the extra duty with interest was paid later on at the instance of the department, it is clear that the appellants could not have passed on the duty benefit to their customers at the time of the clearance of the goods. As such, we set aside the impugned order and restore the order in original passed by the Dy. Commissioner with consequential benefit to the appellants.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Silwester Textiles P. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge K Kumar, S T C.