Resistoflex Dynamics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Resistoflex Dynamics (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 13, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33777

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/33777
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, a T V.K.
Decided On: Jan 13, 2004
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

Resistoflex Dynamics (P) Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(171)ELT312TriDel

Excerpt

.....a refund claim in respect of the duty paid by them as they were availing the benefit of small-scale exemption notification. the deputy commissioner vide order no. 2/2001, dated 11-4-2001 sanctioned the refund. the contention of the appellants is that in these circumstances, the denial of benefit of small-scale exemption notification is not sustainable. the appellants also submitted that as per the condition of small-scale exemption notification no. 9/2000, once the manufacturer opted for this notification then there is no option with the manufacturer to withdraw from the notification during the same financial year.4. the contention of the revenue is that the appellants violated the conditions of the notification by paying normal rate of duty.therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit of this small-scale exemption notification.5. in this case, the revenue is not disputing the fact that the appellants with effect from 1-4-2000 opted for small-scale exemption notification. appellants cleared certain goods at normal rate of duty regarding which the appellants filed refund claim which was duly sanctioned by the deputy commissioner on the ground that the appellants were availing the benefit of small-scale exemption notification and they paid excess duty.6. further we find that as per provisions of notification no. 9/2000 the manufacturer who opted to avail the benefit of this notification cannot withdraw from the purview of notification during the same financial year.7. in view of the above condition of the notification and of the fact that the excess duty paid was refunded by the revenue, therefore, the order denying the benefit of small-scale exemption notification is not sustainable. the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Full Judgment

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal whereby the benefit of small-scale exemption notification has been denied to the appellants on the ground that during the financial year, they cleared certain goods on normal rate of duty.

3. The contention of the appellants is that they filed necessary declaration to avail the benefit of small-scale exemption Notification No. 9/2000 with effect from 1-4-2000. Due to mistake, by their manager, certain goods were cleared at full rate of duty. On realising the mistake, the appellants filed a refund claim in respect of the duty paid by them as they were availing the benefit of small-scale exemption notification. The Deputy Commissioner vide order No. 2/2001, dated 11-4-2001 sanctioned the refund. The contention of the appellants is that in these circumstances, the denial of benefit of small-scale exemption notification is not sustainable. The appellants also submitted that as per the condition of small-scale exemption Notification No. 9/2000, once the manufacturer opted for this notification then there is no option with the manufacturer to withdraw from the notification during the same financial year.

4. The contention of the Revenue is that the appellants violated the conditions of the notification by paying normal rate of duty.

Therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit of this small-scale exemption notification.

5. In this case, the Revenue is not disputing the fact that the appellants with effect from 1-4-2000 opted for small-scale exemption notification. Appellants cleared certain goods at normal rate of duty regarding which the appellants filed refund claim which was duly sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the appellants were availing the benefit of small-scale exemption notification and they paid excess duty.

6. Further we find that as per provisions of Notification No. 9/2000 the manufacturer who opted to avail the benefit of this notification cannot withdraw from the purview of notification during the same financial year.

7. In view of the above condition of the notification and of the fact that the excess duty paid was refunded by the Revenue, therefore, the order denying the benefit of small-scale exemption notification is not sustainable. The same is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Resistoflex Dynamics (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S Kang, a T V.K.