Pushpam Ceramics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Pushpam Ceramics vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 09, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/32604

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/32604
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, A M Moheb
Decided On: Oct 09, 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

Pushpam Ceramics

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(158)ELT360Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of rs. 2,28,806/- and penalty of equal amount arises out of the order of the commissioner of central excise. the duty liability is confirmed as a result of holding that the process of conversion of pva powder into liquid form by the applicants who are job workers for m/s. peddar & peddar tiles ltd., amounts to manufacture in terms of note 6 to chapter 39 of the central excise tariff act, 1985. penalty has been imposed for contravention of the relevant rules.2. we have heard both sides. we do not find prima facie force in the submission of the applicants that the extended period of limitation is not applicable on the ground of revenue neutrality, as we find that in this case the entire amount of duty confirmed against the job workers would be available as modvat credit, not to the job workers themselves, but to m/s. peddar & peddar tiles ltd. in this situation, the decision of the larger bench of the tribunal in the case of jay yuhshin ltd. v.cce, new delhi - 2000 (119) e.l.t. 718 holding that revenue neutrality is brought about only when the duty is available as credit to the same assessee, is prima fade against the applicants. having regard to this as well as to the fact that the duty amount involved is very small, we direct pre-deposit of the entire duty within four weeks from today and on such deposit, pre-deposit of the penalty shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed pending the appeal. failure to comply with this direction shall result in vacation of stay and dismissal of appeal without prior notice.

Full Judgment

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,28,806/- and penalty of equal amount arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise. The duty liability is confirmed as a result of holding that the process of conversion of PVA powder into liquid form by the applicants who are job workers for M/s. Peddar & Peddar Tiles Ltd., amounts to manufacture in terms of Note 6 to Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Penalty has been imposed for contravention of the relevant rules.

2. We have heard both sides. We do not find prima facie force in the submission of the applicants that the extended period of limitation is not applicable on the ground of revenue neutrality, as we find that in this case the entire amount of duty confirmed against the job workers would be available as Modvat credit, not to the job workers themselves, but to M/s. Peddar & Peddar Tiles Ltd. In this situation, the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. v.CCE, New Delhi - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 718 holding that revenue neutrality is brought about only when the duty is available as credit to the same assessee, is prima fade against the applicants. Having regard to this as well as to the fact that the duty amount involved is very small, we direct pre-deposit of the entire duty within four weeks from today and on such deposit, pre-deposit of the penalty shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed pending the appeal. Failure to comply with this direction shall result in vacation of stay and dismissal of appeal without prior notice.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Pushpam Ceramics vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge J Balasundaram, A M Moheb