Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree Venkatesh Steels Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Shree Venkatesh Steels Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 24, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/32401

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/32401
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T Gowri
Decided On: Sep 24, 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

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Shree Venkatesh Steels Pvt. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(166)ELT484Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....and not produced any duty paying document. the commissioner (appeals) took the view that the failure to follow the procedure would be condoned and allowed the refund. hence this appeal.2. rule 173 l provides for grant of refund of duty paid on manufactured goods which have been issued for home consumption which are returned to the factory of production or any other factory for being remade, refined or reconditioned or subject to any other similar process. among the condition subject to which the refund can be granted are that the assessee furnished information to the department relating to entry of each consignment, stores the goods separately and maintains detailed account of returned goods and the process which they are subject to.sub-rule (3) is specific that no refund shall be granted until the processes have been complied and the account under sub-rule (2) have been rendered to the specification of the commissioner. sub-rule (4) provides for the principal commissioner to relax for reason recorded in writing the provisions of the rule.3. the object of this procedure is clear enough. when an assessee brings into its factory for remake the goods cannot be really be segregated with ease from the goods that are being manufactured in the factory. it will be extremely difficult in any given case for the department to be specified that the goods which are claimed to have been reprocessed after being brought in are really such goods and not goods that the assessee has manufactured and has now cleared without payment of duly. it is in the light of the possible risk to the revenue that stringent procedure has been prescribed the emphasis contained in sub-rule (4) that it is only the principal collector who can relax his requirement in reasons to be writing is clear. the assessee in this case has not complied with the basic requirement contained in the rules. it was not open to the commissioner (appeals) in a situation to relax the requirement of the rules. it is clear.....

Full Judgment

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the appellant was entitled to refund of the duty paid a second time on goods which it claimed had after first being cleared, returned for remedy of defects. The Asst. Commissioner has denied the refund claim on the ground that the required procedure had not been followed by the claimant. It has not maintained any statutory records and not produced any duty paying document. The Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that the failure to follow the procedure would be condoned and allowed the refund. Hence this appeal.

2. Rule 173 L provides for grant of refund of duty paid on manufactured goods which have been issued for home consumption which are returned to the factory of production or any other factory for being remade, refined or reconditioned or subject to any other similar process. Among the condition subject to which the refund can be granted are that the assessee furnished information to the department relating to entry of each consignment, stores the goods separately and maintains detailed account of returned goods and the process which they are subject to.

Sub-rule (3) is specific that no refund shall be granted until the processes have been complied and the account under sub-rule (2) have been rendered to the specification of the Commissioner. Sub-rule (4) provides for the Principal Commissioner to relax for reason recorded in writing the provisions of the rule.

3. The object of this procedure is clear enough. When an assessee brings into its factory for remake the goods cannot be really be segregated with ease from the goods that are being manufactured in the factory. It will be extremely difficult in any given case for the department to be specified that the goods which are claimed to have been reprocessed after being brought in are really such goods and not goods that the assessee has manufactured and has now cleared without payment of duly. It is in the light of the possible risk to the revenue that stringent procedure has been prescribed The emphasis contained in sub-rule (4) that it is only the Principal Collector who can relax his requirement in reasons to be writing is clear. The assessee in this case has not complied with the basic requirement contained in the rules. It was not open to the Commissioner (Appeals) in a situation to relax the requirement of the rules. It is clear from the facts that the assessee has not proved that the goods were in fact subject to any of the process specified in the rule and that what was received was duly paid goods.

4. I therefore allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the order of the Asst. Collector.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Shree Venkatesh Steels Pvt.... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S T Gowri