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.

Skm Fabrics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Skm Fabrics vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 13, 2003
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/31226

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 Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
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

Skm Fabrics

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

.....of the duty paid semi-processed fabrics the applicant availed modvat credit of the full duty paid by m/s. mrti processors, carried out further process and then cleared the finished products on payment of duty @ 20%. the department was of the view that the applicant had taken excess credit equal to the deemed credit availed of by the job worker whereas they should have taken credit only on actual duty paid by the job worker and hence the show cause notice was issued proposing recovery of the amount mentioned above and also proposing penal action. the notice was adjudicated by the deputy commissioner, who confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalty of rs. 1,00,000/-. the commissioner (appeals) upheld that order of the adjudicating authority and hence this appeal and stay application.2. on hearing both sides and noting that prima facie the applicants have taken exact amount of duties mentioned as paid in the invoices issued by the job workers as credit and also noting that prima facie there is no restriction in the relevant notification that the credit can be taken only of the actual duty (and not the deemed credit) i am of the view that a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty has been made out by the applicants. the interpretation of the board's circular dated 3rd september, 1996 relied upon by the authorities below will be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. the pre-deposit the duty and penalty is waived and recovery thereof stayed pending the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. Arguing on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 4,09,643/- and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Smt. Mani Prakash, learned Consultant submits that the applicant was a processor of man-made fabrics deemed credit benefit under Notification 29/96. During the period July to October, 1997 the applicant had sent goods for job work to M/s. MRTI Processors who returned the semi-processed fabrics on payment of appropriate Central Excise duty @ 12% BED + 8% AED after availing deemed credit equal to 60% of the BED as provided under Notification 29/96. On receipt of the duty paid semi-processed fabrics the applicant availed modvat credit of the full duty paid by M/s. MRTI Processors, carried out further process and then cleared the finished products on payment of duty @ 20%. The department was of the view that the applicant had taken excess credit equal to the deemed credit availed of by the job worker whereas they should have taken credit only on actual duty paid by the job worker and hence the show cause notice was issued proposing recovery of the amount mentioned above and also proposing penal action. The notice was adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner, who confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld that order of the adjudicating authority and hence this appeal and stay application.

2. On hearing both sides and noting that prima facie the applicants have taken exact amount of duties mentioned as paid in the invoices issued by the job workers as credit and also noting that prima facie there is no restriction in the relevant notification that the credit can be taken only of the actual duty (and not the deemed credit) I am of the view that a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty has been made out by the applicants. The interpretation of the Board's circular dated 3rd September, 1996 relied upon by the authorities below will be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. The pre-deposit the duty and penalty is waived and recovery thereof stayed pending the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial