Sterlite Optical Technologies Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Sterlite Optical Technologies vs The Commissioner of Central

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

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/32559

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/32559
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: A Wadhwa, S T S.S.
Decided On: Oct 07, 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

Sterlite Optical Technologies

Respondent

The Commissioner of Central

Excerpt

.....requiring them to give a bank guarantee for the entire liability of rs.11.74 crores which bank guarantee stands executed by them. it is his case that the amount involved in the present appeal is covered by the above bank guarantee of rs.11.74 crores given in terms of the high court order. he fairly agrees that the above plea was not taken before the bench at the time of stay hearing and as such was not taken into consideration by the bench at the time of passing of the order. in view of the above, shri jain prays mat the said stay order be modified.3. on the last date of hearing ld. jdr for the revenue has sought time to verify as to whether the amount of rs. 11.74 crores for which the bank guarantee was given by the appellants, indues duty demand of rs. 1.54 crores or not. on matter being called today, shri a. chopra appearing for the revenue informs us that the bank guarantee covers the disputed amount of duty in the present case.4. in view of the above facts, we modify the stay order and dispense with the condition of pre-deposit. however, it is made clear that the bank guarantee would be kept alive during the pendency of the proceedings before the tribunal.5. miscellaneous application is allowed in above terms. (pronounced in the court)

Full Judgment

1. Vide stay order No. CII/2007-10/WZB/2003 dated 25/07/2003, the first appellant M/s. Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd., was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.20 lakhs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter, the appellant filed a miscellaneous application for modification of stay order on the ground that out of the total duty demand of Rs.1.54 crores, an amount of Rs.89.55 lakhs was deposited by them even before the adjudication order. The direction to deposit an amount of Rs.20 lakhs by the Tribunal was out of the balance amount of Rs. 66.31 lakhs. The said direction was made on the prima facie observation that the appellant does not have a good case on merits. Shri Vipin Jain, Ld. CA appearing for the appellants submits that subsequently the Tribunal in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd., v. CCE, Indore {2003 (155) ELT 200 (Tri. - Del)} has taken a view on the disputed issue in favour of the appellants.

2. He further submits that there is a High Court order passed on then petition for re-bonding requiring them to give a bank guarantee for the entire liability of Rs.11.74 crores which bank guarantee stands executed by them. It is his case that the amount involved in the present appeal is covered by the above bank guarantee of Rs.11.74 crores given in terms of the High Court order. He fairly agrees that the above plea was not taken before the Bench at the time of stay hearing and as such was not taken into consideration by the Bench at the time of passing of the order. In view of the above, Shri Jain prays mat the said stay order be modified.

3. On the last date of hearing Ld. JDR for the Revenue has sought time to verify as to whether the amount of Rs. 11.74 crores for which the Bank Guarantee was given by the appellants, indues duty demand of Rs. 1.54 crores or not. On matter being called today, Shri A. Chopra appearing for the Revenue informs us that the Bank Guarantee covers the disputed amount of duty in the present case.

4. In view of the above facts, we modify the stay order and dispense with the condition of pre-deposit. However, it is made clear that the bank guarantee would be kept alive during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal.

5. Miscellaneous application is allowed in above terms. (Pronounced in the Court)

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Sterlite Optical Technologies vs The Commissioner of Central Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge A Wadhwa, S T S.S.