Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shrivati Textiles Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Shrivati Textiles Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 23, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34268

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/34268
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S., K Kumar
Decided On: Feb 23, 2004
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Shrivati Textiles Pvt. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(175)ELT463Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....to reject the ct-3 to an eou, unless status of eou is withdrawn/cancelled/surrendered and after considering that exim policy permits eou to procure duty free raw material under central excise (removal of goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods) rules, 2001 and in case of a misuse the eou was liable to pay duty with interest and there being no provision in central excise (removal of goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods) rules, 2001 to enable officer to have grant of permission of duty free goods on the grounds of misuse and on considering this scope of rule 6 therein ordered the officers to immediately make arrangement for issue of fresh ct-3 certificate. a) the assessee has not sent the d-3 intimation by post and/or there was a delay of more than 15 days. b) they have noticed while investigating the case that proper records were not maintained.3. after hearing the dr and the appellants in person and on the appellants producing the certificates of registration to be valid and no case having been established against the respondents, it is prima facie to be held that merely on the basis of certain investigations, an eou cannot be deprived of the legitimate business of receiving the goods for export purposes.4. the ld. dr reiterates the grounds and does not very seriously press for the stay. there is no duty and/or penalty involved to be deposited as which is required to be stayed. the inherent powers of the tribunal cannot be invoked to stay the operation of an order. that could be considered only when very strong grounds have been brought out. no such grounds exist in the present case to induce us to exercise the inherent powers, to order the stay of the commissioner (appeals). the issuance of ct-3 certificate would only enable eou to conduct its business in future. the department is free to take actions as available under law for any future misuse on goods brought in pursuance of the commissioner.....

Full Judgment

1. Revenue has filed stay application in an appeal filed by them. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), vide the order impugned, after considering that there was no provision in the Act to reject the CT-3 to an EOU, unless status of EOU is withdrawn/cancelled/surrendered and after considering that EXIM Policy permits EOU to procure duty free raw material under Central Excise (Removal of goods at Concessional rate of duty for manufacture of Excisable goods) Rules, 2001 and in case of a misuse the EOU was liable to pay duty with interest and there being no provision in Central Excise (Removal of goods at Concessional rate of duty for manufacture of Excisable goods) Rules, 2001 to enable officer to have grant of permission of duty free goods on the grounds of misuse and on considering this scope of Rule 6 therein ordered the officers to immediately make arrangement for issue of fresh CT-3 certificate.

a) The assessee has not sent the D-3 intimation by post and/or there was a delay of more than 15 days.

b) They have noticed while investigating the case that proper records were not maintained.

3. After hearing the DR and the appellants in person and on the appellants producing the certificates of registration to be valid and no case having been established against the respondents, it is prima facie to be held that merely on the basis of certain investigations, an EOU cannot be deprived of the legitimate business of receiving the goods for Export purposes.

4. The Ld. DR reiterates the grounds and does not very seriously press for the stay. There is no duty and/or penalty involved to be deposited as which is required to be stayed. The inherent powers of the Tribunal cannot be invoked to stay the operation of an order. That could be considered only when very strong grounds have been brought out. No such grounds exist in the present case to induce us to exercise the inherent powers, to order the stay of the Commissioner (Appeals). The issuance of CT-3 certificate would only enable EOU to conduct its business in future. The Department is free to take actions as available under law for any future misuse on goods brought in pursuance of the Commissioner (Appeals) separately. A stay at this stage would in effect grant the appeal of the Revenue. Therefore, we find no grounds to grant a stay.

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