Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. U.S.V. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs U.S.V. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 09, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34499

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/34499
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S.
Decided On: Mar 09, 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

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

U.S.V. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(167)ELT318Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. revenue is in appeal against the order of the cce (appeals), who has held as follows: "the ground of rejection quoted by the adjudicating authority is that the process of repacking should have been carried out under the supervision of central excise officer, which is nowhere appearing in the said rule 173m. all conditions laid down under the said rule giving intimation of receipt of goods, receiving the goods within one year, informing the re-entry within 24 hrs, storing them separately and separate account of process etc. as laid down under the said rule 173m have been followed by the appellants. this fact has not been denied by the adjudicating authority. the grounds on which refund claim has been rejected is not tenable as the same is not required. once it is established that consignment has suffered duty twice and all the procedures as laid down under rule 173m have been followed, the refund claim cannot be denied." in the present case, the appellants have complied with all the requirement of rule 173m and are therefore, rightly eligible for the refund. on the ground - (i) assessee has failed to observe the procedure laid down in terms of annexure 49. therefore, conclusion not possible. (ii) sufferance of duty twice not established therefrom even if rule 173m procedure followed, the order of refund as made not called for. (a) annexure 49 applies to rule 173mm and no evidence shown that it applies to rule 173m. therefore, ground taken not relevant. (b) the superintendent of central excise in his report he confirmed about repacking of goods under brand name 'fulgram' and procedure of clearance under cover of invoice after payment of duty followed are submissions on record taken cognisance by cce (appeals) and not controverted in the grounds now taken. the second ground therefore is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. Revenue is in appeal against the order of the CCE (Appeals), who has held as follows: "the ground of rejection quoted by the Adjudicating Authority is that the process of repacking should have been carried out under the supervision of Central Excise Officer, which is nowhere appearing in the said Rule 173M. All conditions laid down under the said Rule giving intimation of receipt of goods, receiving the goods within one year, informing the re-entry within 24 hrs, storing them separately and separate account of process etc. as laid down under the said Rule 173M have been followed by the appellants. This fact has not been denied by the Adjudicating Authority. The grounds on which refund claim has been rejected is not tenable as the same is not required. Once it is established that consignment has suffered duty twice and all the procedures as laid down under Rule 173M have been followed, the refund claim cannot be denied." In the present case, the appellants have complied with all the requirement of Rule 173M and are therefore, rightly eligible for the refund. On the ground - (i) assessee has failed to observe the procedure laid down in terms of Annexure 49. Therefore, conclusion not possible.

(ii) Sufferance of duty twice not established therefrom even if Rule 173M procedure followed, the order of refund as made not called for.

(a) Annexure 49 applies to Rule 173MM and no evidence shown that it applies to Rule 173M. Therefore, ground taken not relevant.

(b) The Superintendent of Central Excise in his report he confirmed about repacking of goods under brand name 'Fulgram' and procedure of Clearance under cover of invoice after payment of duty followed are submissions on record taken cognisance by CCE (Appeals) and not controverted in the grounds now taken. The second ground therefore is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs U.S.V. Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S T S.S.