S. Kant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

S. Kant vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 07, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/30557

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/30557
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram
Decided On: Apr 07, 2003
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S. Kant

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

jyoti balasundaram, member (j) 1. the brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of medicaments falling under chapter 30 of the schedule to the ceta, 1985. they filed classification declarations classifying their products as p or p medicaments under ceta sub-heading 3003.10 attracting duty @ 15%. the assistant commissioner classified the medicaments as generic products under ceta sub-heading 3003.20 attracting 'nil' rate of july. the range superintendment issued nine show cause notices-cum-demand notice alleging contravention of the provisions of rule 173b and rule 57a read with rule 57c by clearing the goods under ceta sub-heading 3003.10 after paying duty @ 15% advalorem for export after availing modvat credit instead of under ceta sub-heading 3003.20 at 'nil' rate of duty without the benefit of modvat credit. the notices were confirmed the reversal of credit of rs. 4,19,650/- was ordered. the commissioner (appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. he further held that the appellants may file their claim for benefit of rebate under rule 12(1) to the appropriate authority. hence this appeal.2. i have heard both sides.3. there is no substance in the appellant's contention that they had the option either to clear the goods without payment of duty or pay duty and avail of he benefit of modvat credit. however, their challenge to some of the demands, on the ground of time bar, required to be examined as this is a legal plea which has been raised at the time of arguments, although not raised earlier before either of the authorities below. it is their claim that some of the demands are barred by limitation as the notices have been issued beyond the period of six months from the relevant date i.e., the date of filing of rt12 returns.the chart submitted by them in this connection forms annexure to this order.4. i, therefore, while upholding the merits of the demand, set aside the impugned order and remand the case.....

Full Judgment

Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) 1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of medicaments falling under Chapter 30 of the schedule to the CETA, 1985. They filed classification declarations classifying their products as P or P medicaments under CETA sub-heading 3003.10 attracting duty @ 15%. The Assistant Commissioner classified the medicaments as generic products under CETA sub-heading 3003.20 attracting 'nil' rate of july. The Range Superintendment issued nine show cause notices-cum-demand notice alleging contravention of the provisions of Rule 173B and Rule 57A read with Rule 57C by clearing the goods under CETA sub-heading 3003.10 after paying duty @ 15% advalorem for export after availing modvat credit instead of under CETA sub-heading 3003.20 at 'nil' rate of duty without the benefit of modvat credit. The notices were confirmed the reversal of credit of Rs. 4,19,650/- was ordered. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. He further held that the appellants may file their claim for benefit of rebate under Rule 12(1) to the appropriate authority. Hence this appeal.

2. I have heard both sides.

3. There is no substance in the appellant's contention that they had the option either to clear the goods without payment of duty or pay duty and avail of he benefit of modvat credit. However, their challenge to some of the demands, on the ground of time bar, required to be examined as this is a legal plea which has been raised at the time of arguments, although not raised earlier before either of the authorities below. It is their claim that some of the demands are barred by limitation as the notices have been issued beyond the period of six months from the relevant date i.e., the date of filing of RT12 returns.

The chart submitted by them in this connection forms annexure to this order.

4. I, therefore, while upholding the merits of the demand, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for decision on the plea of time bar. He shall pass fresh orders after extending a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants to the appellants.

5. The appeal is thus allowed by remand.

AR4 NO & DATE SR. NO INVOICE. NO & DATE AMOUNT "RG23A " PAR I 11 ENTRY NO & DT DATE OF FILLING R.T 12 TIME BARKED.AMOUNT NOT Tl MI-BARRED AMOUNT 26/17.7.95 1 52/20.6.95 23800 77/24.6.95 5/7/1995 2 35/17.6.95 11543 79/24.6.95 5/7/1995 3 701/21.6.95 8460 78/24.6.95 5/7/1995 27/17.7.95 4 701/21.6.95 4700 78/24.6.95 5/7/1995 5 B/0027/10.4.95 1363 12/16.4.95 8/5/1995 RS 49S66/- F NO CEX/R. 05/ SCN/8 Kont /96 dt 15.1.96 TOTAL 46/5.10.95 6 961/24.6.95 23630 109/13.7.95 9/8/1995 23630 45/5.10.95 7 575/11.9.95 7840 191/16.9.95 10/10/95 7840 8 574/11.9.95 3400 192/16.6.95 05/7/95 9 B/0423/4.7.95 1300 110/10.7.95 07/8/95 1300 10 1452/19.9.95 4700 202/21.9.95 10.10.95 4700 48/19.10.95 11 1378/30.8.95 6380 224/5.10.95 13.11.95 6380 58/21.11.95 12 838/21.10.95 2692 269/13.11.95 11.12.95 2692 RS 49942/- S.NO CEX/R-05 SCM/6Kant/96 dt 17.1.96 TOTAL | 31/25.7.95 13 52/20.6.95 5850 77/24.6.95 05.07.95 14 314/30.6.95 2988 ' 119/20.7.95 07.08.95 2988 15 52/20.6.95 26000 77/24.6.95 05.07.95 16 35/17.6.95 13280 79/24.6.95 05.07.95 . / F. No CEX/R-05;SCN/SKANT/96 dt 17.1.96 32/25.7.95 17 556037/17.6.95 8062 75/21.6.95 5.7.95 34/3.8.95 18 556037/17.6.95 2641 75/21.6.95 5.7.95 19 B/0027/10.4.95 28336 12/16.4.95 8.5.95 20 B/423/U.7.95 3726 110/10.7.95 07/8/95 3726 36/17.8.95 21 669/24.1.95 285 399/6.2.95 285 22 113/27.4.95 5985 27/30.4.95 08.5.95 RS 49035- F.NO CEX/R.05/ SCM/8Kant/96 dt17.1.96 TOTAL 39/6.9.95 23 669/24.1.95 67 399/6.2.95 67 24 449/27.7.95 48337 134/8.8.95 06.09.95 48375 25 0318/31.7.95 139/8.8.95 06.09.95 26 062/26.4.95 760 24/29.4.95 08.5.95 RS 49202/- F.NO CEX/R.05/SCM/S Kant/96 dt 15/1/96 TOTAL AR4 NO & DATE SR. NO INVOICE. NO & DATE AMOUNT RG23A PART II ENTRY NO & DT DATE OF FILLING R.T 12 TIME BARRED AMOUNT NOT TIME BARRED AMOUNT 52/30.10.95 27 169/28.8.95 4770 161/31.8.95 06.9.95 4770 55/6.11.95 28 30/9.9.95 12000 203/21.9.95 10.10.95 12000 56/9.11.95 29 556178/16.9.95 8120 200/21.9.95 10.10.95 8120 57/21.11.95 30 1452/19.9.95 8648 202/21.9.95 10.10.95 8648 31 1778/31.10.95 2820 257/12.11.95 11.12.95 2820 59/27.11.95 32 660/13.11.95 1056 298/21.11.95 11.12.95 1056 60/27.11.95 33 660/13.11.95 6732 298/21.11.95 11.12.95 6732 61/27.11.95 34 460/95/31.11.95 3000 265/13.11.95 11.12.95 3000 62/30.11.95 35 30/9.9.95 150 203/21.9.95 10.10.95 150 64/07.12.95 36 201/23.9.95 2702 254/12.11.95 11.12.95 2702 RS 49998/- TOTAL 32/25.7.95 37 0961/24.6.95 2673 109/13.7.95 07.08.95 2673 38 43/17.5.95 06.06.95 34/3.8.95 39 961/24.6.95 886 109/13.7.95 07.08.95 886 40 43/17.5.95 06.06.95 35/17.8.95 41 961/24.6.95 3575 109/13.7.95 07.08.95 3575 42 39/4.7.95 556 122/20.7.95 07.8.95 556 38/6.9.95 43 1744/5.7.95 4477 111/13.7.95 07.08.95 4477 44 39/04.7.95 696 122/20.7.95 07.8.95 696 43/5.10.95 45 961/24.6.95 1181 109/13.7.95 07.8.95 1181 46 39/4.7.95 184 122/20.7.95 07.08.95 184 46/5.10.95 47 961/24.6.95 7839 109/13.7.95 07.08.95 7839 48 39/4.7.95 1219 122/20.7.95 7.8.95 1219 RS 23840/- TOTAL AR NO 7 DATE SR. NO INVOICIE. NO& AMOUNT DATE RG23A PARTII ENTRY NO &dt DATE OF^; FILLING R.T 12 TIMH BARRED AMOUNT NOTTIMl-BARRHD AMOUNT 35/17.8.95 49 556037/17.6.95 10703 75/21.6.95 5.7.95 37/17.8.95 50 52/20.6.95 4875 77/24.6.95 5.7.95 51 671/20.6.95 140/8.8.95 6.9.95 52 31 4/30.6.95 2490 119/20.7.95 7.8.95 2490 53 670/26.7.95 141/8.8.95 6.9.95 54 0963/12.6.95 1900 90/3.7.95 7.8.95 1900 38/6.9.95 55 556060/14.6.95 13344 104/13.7.95 7.8.95 13344 56 B/0423/1 1.7.95 2400 110/10.7.95 7.8.95 24 06 57 419/27.7.95 13437 134/8.8.95 6.9.95 13437 58 318/31.7.95 760 139/8.8.95 6.9.95 760 RS 49909/- CEX/R.05/SCM/96Kant/96 dt17.1.96 TOTAL 4 1/6.9.95 59 52/20.6.95 1008 77/24.6.95 5.7.95 60 35/17.6.95 345 79/24.6.95 .

5.7.95 61 62/26.7.95 3500 130/30.7.95 7.8.95 3500 62 1070/2.8.95 8460 137/8.8.95 6.9.95 8460 42/5.10.95 63 23/29.7.95 9300 143/12.8.95 6.9.95 9300 669/24.1.95 600 399/6.2.95 600 65 203/9.9.95 190 124/23.7.95 7.8.95 190 66 464/9.9.95 188/16.9.95 10.10.95 43/5.H).95 67 556037/17.6.95 2641 75/21.6.95 5.7.95-.- 2641 6B B/423/11.7.95 1800 110/10.7.95 7.8.95 1800 69 '464/9.9.95 1900 188/16.9.95 10.10.95 1900 44/5.10.95 70 1070/2.8.95 1880 137/8.8.95 6.9.95 1880 71 464/9.9.95 1140 188/16.9.95 10.10.95 1140 72 13/423/11.7.95 2600 110/10.7.95 7.8.95 2600 49/19.10.95 7374 556137/11.8.95 3990 149/13.8.95 6.9.95 3990 556178/16.9.95 8265 200/21.9.95 10.10.95 8265 63/4.17.95 75 125/16. 11.94 2115 318/17.1-1.94 2115 RS 49734/- CEX/R.05/SCM/Kant/ /96 dt 17.1.96 TOTAL

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties S. Kant vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Excise Same Judge J Balasundaram