Havell'S Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Havell'S Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 08, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33702

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/33702
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: P Bajaj
Decided On: Jan 08, 2004
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

Havell'S Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(93)ECC383

Excerpt

.....and as such no confiscation of the goods could be ordered. he has relied upon the ratio of the law laid down in the case of bhillai conductors (p) ltd. v. cce, raipur, 3. on the other hand, the learned jdr has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and relied upon the ratio of the law laid down in the case of kirloskar brothers 1988 (34) elt 30 and media video ltd. v.cce, new delhi, 4. i have heard both sides and gone through the record. so far as the non-accountal of the goods (waste and scrap of copper and steel) in the statutory record by the appellants is concerned, the same has not been disputed before me. the learned counsel has only placed much reliance on the ratio of the law laid down in the case of bhillai conductors, supra, wherein it has been no doubt observed that for invoking the provisions of rule 173-q in a case of non-accountal of goods, mala fide intention on the part of the assessee is also required to be proved.but in the instant case, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the non-accountal of the goods by the appellants in their statutory records was due to any bona fide mistake or bona fide lapse. moreover, in the case of kirloskar brothers supra, the bombay high court has categorically ruled that in a case of non-accountal of the goods by the assessee, the provisions of rule 173-q can be invoked and confiscation of the goods can be ordered. this view had been followed by the tribunal in the case of media video ltd., supra.5. even apart from this, under rule 226 which prescribes penalty for non-accountal of the goods, the confiscation of the non-accounted goods is provided. therefore, the argument of the learned counsel that confiscation of the non-accounted goods could not be ordered under any provisions of law, cannot be accepted.6. in view of the discussion made above, the impugned order passed by the commissioner (appeals) is perfectly valid and the same is upheld.the appeal of the appellants is accordingly rejected.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal, the appellants have made challenge to the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the Order-in-Original regarding confiscation of the unaccounted goods and imposition of penalty, as ordered by the adjudicating authority.

2. The learned consultant has contended that for non-accountal of the goods, the provisions of Rule 173-Q could not be invoked and as such no confiscation of the goods could be ordered. He has relied upon the ratio of the law laid down in the case of Bhillai Conductors (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur, 3. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and relied upon the ratio of the law laid down in the case of Kirloskar Brothers 1988 (34) ELT 30 and Media Video Ltd. v.CCE, New Delhi, 4. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. So far as the non-accountal of the goods (waste and scrap of copper and steel) in the statutory record by the appellants is concerned, the same has not been disputed before me. The learned counsel has only placed much reliance on the ratio of the law laid down in the case of Bhillai Conductors, supra, wherein it has been no doubt observed that for invoking the provisions of Rule 173-Q in a case of non-accountal of goods, mala fide intention on the part of the assessee is also required to be proved.

But in the instant case, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the non-accountal of the goods by the appellants in their statutory records was due to any bona fide mistake or bona fide lapse. Moreover, in the case of Kirloskar Brothers supra, the Bombay High Court has categorically ruled that in a case of non-accountal of the goods by the assessee, the provisions of Rule 173-Q can be invoked and confiscation of the goods can be ordered. This view had been followed by the Tribunal in the case of Media Video Ltd., supra.

5. Even apart from this, under Rule 226 which prescribes penalty for non-accountal of the goods, the confiscation of the non-accounted goods is provided. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel that confiscation of the non-accounted goods could not be ordered under any provisions of law, cannot be accepted.

6. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is perfectly valid and the same is upheld.The appeal of the appellants is accordingly rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Havell'S Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge P Bajaj