Sabanam Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Sabanam Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 28, 2003

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/30708

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/30708
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T Gowri, G Srinivasan
Decided On: Apr 28, 2003
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sabanam Processors Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

1. the application is for waiver of deposit of duly of rs. 2.31 lakhs and penalty of rs. 6.50 lakhs.2. the applicant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. we have read the submissions in the stay application and heard the departmental representative.3. the commissioner finds that the applicant did not pay duty of rs. 6.50 lakhs for the period from 19.10.2000 to 31.10.2000 within the period prescribed under rule 96zq(3). subsequently, a sum of rs. 4.19 lakhs out of this amount has been paid.4. the application contends that the order-in-original and the order-in-appeal are patently incorrect and in contravention of the provisions of natural justice. there is no specific averment as to the merits. the commissioner noted that the assessee did not appear before him on four occasions and there was no response from him. on merits, therefore, we do not find prima facie case for the applicant. the unit may no doubt be closed, but financial hardship is not specifically claimed and there is no evidence in this regard. we therefore consider it appropriate to ask the applicant to deposit rs. 4 lakhs towards duty and penalty within a month from the receipt of this order.

Full Judgment

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duly of Rs. 2.31 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 6.50 lakhs.

2. The applicant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the submissions in the stay application and heard the departmental representative.

3. The Commissioner finds that the applicant did not pay duty of Rs. 6.50 lakhs for the period from 19.10.2000 to 31.10.2000 within the period prescribed under Rule 96ZQ(3). Subsequently, a sum of Rs. 4.19 lakhs out of this amount has been paid.

4. The application contends that the order-in-original and the order-in-appeal are patently incorrect and in contravention of the provisions of natural justice. There is no specific averment as to the merits. The Commissioner noted that the assessee did not appear before him on four occasions and there was no response from him. On merits, therefore, we do not find prima facie case for the applicant. The unit may no doubt be closed, but financial hardship is not specifically claimed and there is no evidence in this regard. We therefore consider it appropriate to ask the applicant to deposit Rs. 4 lakhs towards duty and penalty within a month from the receipt of this order.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Sabanam Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Excise Same Judge S T Gowri, G Srinivasan