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.

Cce Vs. Bhandari Foils P Lt.

Cce vs Bhandari Foils P Lt.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 07, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33687

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 Delhi
Judge
Decided On
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

Bhandari Foils P Lt.

Excerpt

1. in this appeal, the revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the commissioner (appeals) has set aside the penalty imposed under rules 13(2) of the cenvat rules on the respondents.2. the learned jdr has contended that the penalty under the said rule could not be set aside and as such, the impugned order is invalid. on the other hand, the learned counsel has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.3. i have been both sides and gone through the record. the perusal of the record show that on conducting physical checking of the finished goods and inputs lying in the factory premised of the respondents by the central excise authorities, some shortage of the inputs was found.but they deposited the duty amount in respect thereof much before the issuance of the show cause notice. the adjudicating authority however still confirmed the duty demand with equal amount of penalty as detailed in the order-in-original. but in my view, the commissioner (appeals) has rightly set aside the penalty by following the ratio of the law laid down in karnal agricultural industries vs. cce 2002 (53) rlt 921 wherein it has been rules that where the duty amount has been paid before the issuance of show cause notice, no penalty is levaible therefore, the view taken by the commissioner (appeals) does not suffer from any legal infirmity and as such is upheld. the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty imposed under Rules 13(2) of the CENVAT Rules on the respondents.

2. The learned JDR has contended that the penalty under the said Rule could not be set aside and as such, the impugned order is invalid. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.

3. I have been both sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the record show that on conducting physical checking of the finished goods and inputs lying in the factory premised of the respondents by the Central Excise authorities, some shortage of the inputs was found.

But they deposited the duty amount in respect thereof much before the issuance of the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority however still confirmed the duty demand with equal amount of penalty as detailed in the order-in-original. but in my view, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the penalty by following the ratio of the law laid down in Karnal Agricultural Industries Vs. CCE 2002 (53) RLT 921 wherein it has been rules that where the duty amount has been paid before the issuance of show cause notice, no penalty is levaible Therefore, the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) does not suffer from any legal infirmity and as such is upheld. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial