Prime Exports Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Prime Exports vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 19, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34211

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/34211
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: A T V.K., P Chacko
Decided On: Feb 19, 2004
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prime Exports

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(167)ELT313TriDel

Excerpt

.....the impugned order, has rejected their application on the ground that they do not satisfy the conditions of the notification to be eligible for the special procedure of compounded levy scheme available to an independent processor engaged in the manufacture of specified textile fabrics; that the appellants are not challenging the denial of special procedure of compounded levy scheme; that the appellants are contesting the penalty of rs. 50,000/- imposed on them for filing wrong declaration; that no penalty is imposable as they had opted for the special procedure of compounded levy and had paid the duty more than payable by them; that, in fact, while submitting their reply to the show cause notice issued to them, they had claimed the refund of rs. 10,48,516/- paid by them in excess; that the commissioner, in the impugned order, has not given any finding on the refund of the duty claimed by them.3. shri p.m. rao, learned d.r., reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned order and submitted that the commissioner, in the present proceedings, was dealing with the question as to whether the compounded levy was available to the appellants; that if any duty has been paid by them in excess, they have to claim the same under section 11b of the central excise act.4. we have considered the submissions of both the sides. as the appellants are not challenging the denial of special procedure of compounded levy to them, the commissioner's order to that extent is upheld. we agree with the learned advocate that no penalty is imposable in such a situation where an assessee opts for a special procedure and files the declaration to that effect with the department. we also observe that the department is not disputing the fact that more duty has been paid by them by opting this compounded levy scheme. in view of this, we set aside the penalty imposed on them. we also agree with the learned d.r. that if any duty has been paid in excess by them, they have to follow the procedure.....

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Prime Exports, the issue involved is whether penalty is imposable on them for opting to avail the Compounded Levy Scheme under Rule 96ZNA of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants are engaged in processing of textile fabrics and they had opted for Compounded Levy Scheme under Rule 96ZNA; that the Commissioner, under the impugned order, has rejected their application on the ground that they do not satisfy the conditions of the Notification to be eligible for the Special Procedure of Compounded Levy Scheme available to an independent processor engaged in the manufacture of specified textile fabrics; that the appellants are not challenging the denial of Special Procedure of Compounded Levy Scheme; that the appellants are contesting the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on them for filing wrong declaration; that no penalty is imposable as they had opted for the Special Procedure of Compounded Levy and had paid the duty more than payable by them; that, in fact, while submitting their reply to the show cause notice issued to them, they had claimed the refund of Rs. 10,48,516/- paid by them in excess; that the Commissioner, in the impugned order, has not given any finding on the refund of the duty claimed by them.

3. Shri P.M. Rao, learned D.R., reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner, in the present proceedings, was dealing with the question as to whether the Compounded Levy was available to the appellants; that if any duty has been paid by them in excess, they have to claim the same under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. As the appellants are not challenging the denial of Special Procedure of Compounded Levy to them, the Commissioner's order to that extent is upheld. We agree with the learned Advocate that no penalty is imposable in such a situation where an assessee opts for a Special Procedure and files the declaration to that effect with the Department. We also observe that the Department is not disputing the fact that more duty has been paid by them by opting this Compounded Levy Scheme. In view of this, we set aside the penalty imposed on them. We also agree with the learned D.R. that if any duty has been paid in excess by them, they have to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules for claiming the refund of the same. The appeal is disposed of in these terms.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Prime Exports vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge A T V.K., P Chacko