Mayfair Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Mayfair vs Commissioner of Central Excise

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

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34217

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/34217
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S., K Kumar
Decided On: Feb 19, 2004
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mayfair

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(167)ELT191Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. after hearing both sides and considering that the delay of 15 days in filing is satisfactorily explained due to sickness in the family of the consultant who was assigned the job of filing this appeal and the ld. dr does not object to the contention of the delay. it is found that the duty of rs. 6,96,985/- and penalty of equivalent amount on the assessee and rs. 7,00,000/- under rule 209a on the director is the consequence of the alleged recovery of excise duty from the buyers of the goods which were not deposited in the government treasury but was required under section 11d is the issue. prima facie if any amount is recovered representing it to be excise duty, the same is required to be deposited. however, mandatory penalty of equivalent amount and penalty under rule 209a are the questions that have to be decided along with the final decision in this case. at this prima facie stage we would order pre-deposit of rs. 6,96,985/- to meet the requirements of section 35f of the central excise act, 1944 and waive, further pre-deposit and stay recovery thereof if the compliance of the pre-deposit order is reported on 20-4-2004. stay applications disposed off in above terms.

Full Judgment

1. After hearing both sides and considering that the delay of 15 days in filing is satisfactorily explained due to sickness in the family of the Consultant who was assigned the job of filing this appeal and the ld. DR does not object to the contention of the delay. It is found that the duty of Rs. 6,96,985/- and penalty of equivalent amount on the assessee and Rs. 7,00,000/- under Rule 209A on the Director is the consequence of the alleged recovery of Excise duty from the buyers of the goods which were not deposited in the Government treasury but was required under Section 11D is the issue. Prima facie if any amount is recovered representing it to be Excise duty, the same is required to be deposited. However, mandatory penalty of equivalent amount and penalty under Rule 209A are the questions that have to be decided along with the final decision in this case. At this prima facie stage we would order pre-deposit of Rs. 6,96,985/- to meet the requirements of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and waive, further pre-deposit and stay recovery thereof if the compliance of the pre-deposit order is reported on 20-4-2004. Stay applications disposed off in above terms.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Mayfair vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Excise Same Judge S T S.S., K Kumar