Krishna Fabrications Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Krishna Fabrications Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs and

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 05, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/32142

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/32142
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram
Decided On: Sep 05, 2003
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Krishna Fabrications Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs and

Excerpt

.....of central excise (appeals) confirming a duty demand of rs. 1,68,780/- (already paid by the appellants on 07/08/1996) ordering confiscation of goods valued at rs. 10,680/- seized from public transport vehicle, namely, truck found outside the factory premises of the appellants on 25/11/1995 and ordering adjustment of rs. 2,000/- in lieu of confiscation as the goods had been released provisionally and imposing a penalty of rs. 15,000/- upon the appellants.2. the appellants have filed written submissions and have asked for a decision on this basis; hence i heard the learned sdr and perused the records.3. the case of the department as brought out from the impugned order is that inputs valued at approximately rs. 4.71 crores had been removed during the period 1991-92 to 1995-965 up to november, 1995 after availing credit to the job workers either without payment of duty or without the cover of 57f(3) challans and that there was a short receipt of inputs, namely, load bodies, automobile seats involving total duty of rs. 1,68,780/-. the case is also that the goods found on the truck on the date of visit of the officers were attempted to be cleared without payment of duty.4. i find that the department has relied upon the re-conciliation statement of the chartered accountant of the appellants to come to the conclusion that some inputs were short received. no convincing reply has been set out in the appeal for not accepting the same and therefore i am of the view that the duty demand has been rightly confirmed and accordingly uphold the same.5. regarding the confiscation and redemption fine on the goods seized from the vehicle, that is also sustainable in view of the fact that the goods were inputs on which credit had been availed and were being sent for processing without any excise document. i therefore uphold the confiscation. the penalty is also sustainable in view of the contravention of the various rules by the appellants. the plea of the appellants regarding.....

Full Judgment

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Confirming a duty demand of Rs. 1,68,780/- (already paid by the appellants on 07/08/1996) ordering confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 10,680/- seized from public transport vehicle, namely, truck found outside the factory premises of the appellants on 25/11/1995 and ordering adjustment of Rs. 2,000/- in lieu of confiscation as the goods had been released provisionally and imposing a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- upon the appellants.

2. The appellants have filed written submissions and have asked for a decision on this basis; hence I heard the learned SDR and perused the records.

3. The case of the department as brought out from the impugned order is that inputs valued at approximately Rs. 4.71 crores had been removed during the period 1991-92 to 1995-965 up to November, 1995 after availing credit to the job workers either without payment of duty or without the cover of 57F(3) challans and that there was a short receipt of inputs, namely, load bodies, automobile seats involving total duty of Rs. 1,68,780/-. The case is also that the goods found on the truck on the date of visit of the officers were attempted to be cleared without payment of duty.

4. I find that the department has relied upon the re-conciliation statement of the chartered accountant of the appellants to come to the conclusion that some inputs were short received. No convincing reply has been set out in the appeal for not accepting the same and therefore i am of the view that the duty demand has been rightly confirmed and accordingly uphold the same.

5. Regarding the confiscation and redemption fine on the goods seized from the vehicle, that is also sustainable in view of the fact that the goods were inputs on which credit had been availed and were being sent for processing without any excise document. I therefore uphold the confiscation. The penalty is also sustainable in view of the contravention of the various rules by the appellants. The plea of the appellants regarding lack of jurisdiction, that the demand is barred as the extended period is not available in the case of application of Rule 571 of the Central Excise Rules, prior to its amendment on 6^th October, 1988 is also not sustainable as after the amendment on 6/10/1998 Rule 571 provided for limitation period and in the present case the Commissioner has rightly issued the notice invoking the extended period.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Krishna Fabrications Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs and Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge J Balasundaram