Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Pressure Sensitive Systems (i) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Pressure Sensitive Systems (i) vs Commissioner of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 26, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/35391

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
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

Pressure Sensitive Systems (i)

Respondent

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(170)ELT445Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the miscellaneous application is for rectification of order no.c-ii/185-86/wzb/2003, dated 23-1-2003 [2003 (160) e.l.t. 404 (tribunal)] passed by the tribunal vide which personal penalty of rs. 60,000/- was reduced to rs. 20,000/- while confirming the reversal of modvat credit of additional duty paid under additional duties of excise (goods of special importance) act, 1957 which was utilised for payment of basic excise duty while clearing the final product.2. the mistake pointed out is that no order has been passed on the point of interest confirmation, which the appellant have challenged on the ground that the provisions of section 11ab came into effect from 28-9-1996 and the period covered is august, 1994 to december, 1996.after perusing the order of the tribunal, we find that no orders have been passed on the interest part. accordingly, we allow the application and proceed to decide the said issue, by including para 6 in the said order. "(6) as regards interest, the appellant's grievance is that the provisions of section 11ab will not apply in the instant case as the period involved is from august 1994 to december 1996, whereas the said section came into existence on 28-9-1996. we agree with the appellant that it is now well settled that the said section is not retrospective. as such, the confirmation of interest for the period prior to 28-9-1996 is not called for. accordingly, we modify the impugned order and set aside that part of the impugned order vide which interest for the period prior to 28-9-1996 has been confirmed. the original adjudicating authority would recalculate the quantum of interest payable by the appellant accordingly." para (6) of the order which is to the effect that the appeal is accordingly allowed in part would be re-numbered as para 7.

Full Judgment

1. The miscellaneous application is for rectification of Order No.C-II/185-86/WZB/2003, dated 23-1-2003 [2003 (160) E.L.T. 404 (Tribunal)] passed by the Tribunal vide which personal penalty of Rs. 60,000/- was reduced to Rs. 20,000/- while confirming the reversal of Modvat credit of Additional duty paid under Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 which was utilised for payment of basic excise duty while clearing the final product.

2. The mistake pointed out is that no order has been passed on the point of interest confirmation, which the appellant have challenged on the ground that the provisions of Section 11AB came into effect from 28-9-1996 and the period covered is August, 1994 to December, 1996.

After perusing the order of the Tribunal, we find that no orders have been passed on the interest part. Accordingly, we allow the application and proceed to decide the said issue, by including Para 6 in the said order.

"(6) As regards interest, the appellant's grievance is that the provisions of Section 11AB will not apply in the instant case as the period involved is from August 1994 to December 1996, whereas the said section came into existence on 28-9-1996. We agree with the appellant that it is now well settled that the said section is not retrospective. As such, the confirmation of interest for the period prior to 28-9-1996 is not called for. Accordingly, we modify the impugned order and set aside that part of the impugned order vide which interest for the period prior to 28-9-1996 has been confirmed.

The original adjudicating authority would recalculate the quantum of interest payable by the appellant accordingly." Para (6) of the order which is to the effect that the appeal is accordingly allowed in part would be re-numbered as Para 7.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial