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.

Ravi Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Ravi Steels Ltd. 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/32608

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

Ravi Steels Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(2003)(158)ELT358Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the application for waiver of pre-deposit of the balance duty of rs. 8,94,341/- (out of the total duty demand of rs. 13,44,341/- a sum of rs. 4,50,000/- already stands paid during the investigation) and penalty of equal amount arises out of the order of the commissioner of central excise (a), mumbai. the duty has been confirmed on the ground inter alia that the applicants in collusion with merchant manufacturers for whom they were processing the fabrics on job work basis, had mis-declared the assessable value of the processed fabrics by suppression of the actual cost of grey fabrics.2. we have heard both sides and perused the records and find that the charge of collusion entirely stems from admission of the two merchant manufacturers that the applicants by colluding with them, had instructed them to file incorrect declaration. the argument that the extended period of limitation is not available, prima facie, is not acceptable/ as this is not the stage for us to consider whether the charge of collusion stands established even by a statement of a single or more merchant manufacturers and the aspect of collusion and consequent applicability of the extended period of limitation will be considered when the appeal is taken up for hearing. no strong prima facie case for total waiver has been made out in view of the above.having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and noting that a sum of rs. 4.5 lakhs already stands paid, we direct further pre-deposit of rs. 2 lakhs (rupees two lakhs) within a period of eight weeks from today and on such deposit, pre-deposit of the balance duty and 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 the balance duty of Rs. 8,94,341/- (out of the total duty demand of Rs. 13,44,341/- a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- already stands paid during the investigation) and penalty of equal amount arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (A), Mumbai. The duty has been confirmed on the ground inter alia that the applicants in collusion with Merchant manufacturers for whom they were processing the fabrics on job work basis, had mis-declared the assessable value of the processed fabrics by suppression of the actual cost of grey fabrics.

2. We have heard both sides and perused the records and find that the charge of collusion entirely stems from admission of the two merchant manufacturers that the applicants by colluding with them, had instructed them to file incorrect declaration. The argument that the extended period of limitation is not available, prima facie, is not acceptable/ as this is not the stage for us to consider whether the charge of collusion stands established even by a statement of a single or more merchant manufacturers and the aspect of collusion and consequent applicability of the extended period of limitation will be considered when the appeal is taken up for hearing. No strong prima facie case for total waiver has been made out in view of the above.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and noting that a sum of Rs. 4.5 lakhs already stands paid, we direct further pre-deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees Two lakhs) within a period of eight weeks from today and on such deposit, pre-deposit of the balance duty and 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.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial