Cce Vs. Jamna Auto Industries Ltd.

Cce vs Jamna Auto Industries Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 05, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33309

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/33309
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, a T V.K.
Decided On: Dec 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

Cce

Respondent

Jamna Auto Industries Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(92)ECC5

Excerpt

2. brief facts of the case are that respondents are engaged in the manufacture of leaf spring and stabilizer. on 27.8.97 the officers of the revenue department visited the factory of the respondents and on verification, it was found that there were shortage of finished products valued at rs. 9,83,498. during verification it was also found that respondents had received the additional amount of rs. 39,96,514 from m/s. maruti udyog ltd. towards clearances effected to m/s. maruti udyog ltd. in addition to the amount indicated in the invoice. a show cause notice was issued for demand of duty amounting to rs. 1,47,525 in respect of the finished products found short and duty amounting to rs. 5,99,477 in respect of additional amount received from m/s. maruti udyog ltd. 3. the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed equal amount of penalty. on appeal filed by the respondents, the commissioner (appeals) allowed the appeal and held that since the appellants deposited the amount in question before issuance of show cause notice, therefore, the respondents are not liable for any penal action.4. the revenue filed this appeal only on the ground that the respondents are liable for penal action in spite of fact that duty was paid prior to issuance of show cause notice as they contravene the provisions of central excise act/rules. revenue relied upon the decision of the tribunal in the case of elephanta gases ltd. v.commissioner of central excise, pune-i, 2003 (155d) elt 42 (tri.-mum).5. the contention of the respondent is that the additional amount was received from m/s. maruti udyog ltd. in last week of august 1997 and in the relevant rt-12 return, the respondents indicated this amount. the respondents also pointed out the relevant price variation clause in the purchase order was disclosed in the declaration filed by them.6. in respect of demand regarding shortage of finished goods, the contention of the respondents is that the duty was paid immediately.therefore,.....

Full Judgment

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Leaf Spring and Stabilizer. On 27.8.97 the Officers of the Revenue Department visited the factory of the respondents and on verification, it was found that there were shortage of finished products valued at Rs. 9,83,498. During verification it was also found that respondents had received the additional amount of Rs. 39,96,514 from M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. towards clearances effected to M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. in addition to the amount indicated in the invoice. A show cause notice was issued for demand of duty amounting to Rs. 1,47,525 in respect of the finished products found short and duty amounting to Rs. 5,99,477 in respect of additional amount received from M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. 3. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed equal amount of penalty. On appeal filed by the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and held that since the appellants deposited the amount in question before issuance of show cause notice, therefore, the respondents are not liable for any penal action.

4. The Revenue filed this appeal only on the ground that the respondents are liable for penal action in spite of fact that duty was paid prior to issuance of show cause notice as they contravene the provisions of Central Excise Act/Rules. Revenue relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Elephanta Gases Ltd. v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I, 2003 (155D) ELT 42 (Tri.-Mum).

5. The contention of the respondent is that the additional amount was received from M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. in last week of August 1997 and in the relevant RT-12 Return, the respondents indicated this amount. The respondents also pointed out the relevant price variation clause in the purchase order was disclosed in the declaration filed by them.

6. In respect of demand regarding shortage of finished goods, the contention of the respondents is that the duty was paid immediately.

Therefore, they are not liable for any penalty.

7. We find that in this case the demand of Rs. 5,99,477 was confirmed in respect of additional amount received from their customers i.e. M/s.

Maruti Udyog Ltd. In the purchase order, there was a price variation clause which was disclosed to the Revenue by the respondents. The amount in question was received in the last week of August 1997 and in the relevant RT-12 Return this amount is mentioned by the respondents.

In these circumstances, we find that the respondents had no intention to evade the payment of duty in respect of this amount hence, not liable for any penal action.

8. In respect of the demand on account of shortage of finished product, the respondents failed to explain the shortage and they are admitting the shortage of finished product. The Tribunal in the case of Elephanta Gases Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I (Supra) held that the assessee is liable to penal action in case of contravention of the provisions of Central Excise Act/Rules even the duty was paid before issuance of show cause notice. As the respondents had not accounted for the shortage of finished product, therefore, they are liable for penal action. Taking into facts and circumstances of the case, we find that a penalty of Rs. 25,000 (Rupees Twenty-five thousand only) will meet the end of justice. Therefore, we impose a penalty of Rs. 25,000 (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) on the respondents. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce vs Jamna Auto Industries Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S Kang, a T V.K.