Vashishti Detergents Ltd. Vs. Cce

Vashishti Detergents Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 18, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34623

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/34623
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: K Usha, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Mar 18, 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

Vashishti Detergents Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Excerpt

.....of excess of inputs. these shortages were noticed by the central excise authorities during the visit to the unit on 15.12.95. penalty of rs. 10 lakhs and redemption fine of rs. 8 lakhs have also been imposed.2. the explanation of the appellant-manufacturer before the lower authorities was that, actually there was no shortage or excess of inputs. only that the excise records had not been fully posted.according to the appellants, if full postings were made in the excise records based on the factory accounts maintained regularly by the appellants, the entire quantities would be reconciled.3. during the hearing of the case, the learned counsel for the appellants took us through a letter of reconciliation of quantities filed by the appellants on 29.12.95. this letter was received within a few days of stock taking by the officers. the appellants also showed us their factory records which are found to be maintained on a regular basis in registers, ledgers etc. the learned counsel pointed out that the adjudication order has been passed by the commissioner in total disregard of regular business accounts of the appellants. the learned counsel also stressed that the appellants difficulty in proper accounts keeping was attributable to poor employee-employer relations. he emphasized that apart from the failure to make entries in central excise statutory records, there is no failure on the part of the appellants to fully account for the inputs received and utilized. there was no misuse of inputs on which credit had been taken. nor was there any clandestine production or clearance.4. we have perused the records and heard the dr also. from the letter dated 29.12.95 of the appellant and the sample records produced, we are satisfied that these factory records of the appellants merited to be considered before reaching any finding about the alleged shortages or excesses. the impugned order which has recorded finding without considering them cannot be upheld. the matter requires to.....

Full Judgment

1. Under the impugned order, there is a duty demand of about Rs. 44 lakhs. About Rs. 37 lakhs is on account of shortage of inputs and remaining is on account of excess of inputs. These shortages were noticed by the Central Excise authorities during the visit to the unit on 15.12.95. Penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs and redemption fine of Rs. 8 lakhs have also been imposed.

2. The explanation of the appellant-manufacturer before the lower authorities was that, actually there was no shortage or excess of inputs. Only that the excise records had not been fully posted.

According to the appellants, if full postings were made in the excise records based on the factory accounts maintained regularly by the appellants, the entire quantities would be reconciled.

3. During the hearing of the case, the learned Counsel for the appellants took us through a letter of reconciliation of quantities filed by the appellants on 29.12.95. This letter was received within a few days of stock taking by the officers. The appellants also showed us their factory records which are found to be maintained on a regular basis in registers, ledgers etc. The learned Counsel pointed out that the adjudication order has been Passed by the Commissioner in total disregard of regular business accounts of the appellants. The learned Counsel also stressed that the appellants difficulty in proper accounts keeping was attributable to poor employee-employer relations. He emphasized that apart from the failure to make entries in Central Excise statutory records, there is no failure on the part of the appellants to fully account for the inputs received and utilized. There was no misuse of inputs on which credit had been taken. Nor was there any clandestine production or clearance.

4. We have perused the records and heard the DR also. From the letter dated 29.12.95 of the appellant and the sample records produced, we are satisfied that these factory records of the appellants merited to be considered before reaching any finding about the alleged shortages or excesses. The impugned order which has recorded finding without considering them cannot be upheld. The matter requires to be reconsidered in the light of the appellants records and their explanation. To facilitate the same, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the commissioner for fresh adjudication. He shall pass a fresh order on the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say, the appellant shall be given full opportunity to explain its case.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Vashishti Detergents Ltd. vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge K Usha, N T C.N.B.