Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. U.T. Limited

Commissioner of Central Excise vs U.T. Limited

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided May 27, 2004

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/35403

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/35403
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: K Usha, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: May 27, 2004
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

U.T. Limited

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(170)ELT168TriDel

Excerpt

1. the appeal is accompanied by a condonation of delay application. the delay involved is 45 days. we have heard both sides on the condonation of delay application, stay application and appeal.2. revenue's appeal is about penalty. it is being contended that penalty was mandatory and commissioner made an error in setting aside penalty on the ground that "two views were possible" on the question of valuation. a perusal of the records makes it clear that the difference in price between supplies made to the market (m/s. tafe, madras) and clearances made to appellants hosur unit is on account of the fact that the transfers to the hosur-unit were of semi-finished items which required further processing, while the sales to buyers is of fully finished items. thus, there was a valid explanation for difference in prices. penal provisions cannot be invoked in such a cases.3. the appeal of the revenue, therefore, has no merit. it is rejected after condoning the delay.

Full Judgment

1. The appeal is accompanied by a condonation of delay application. The delay involved is 45 days. We have heard both sides on the condonation of delay application, stay application and appeal.

2. Revenue's appeal is about penalty. It is being contended that penalty was mandatory and Commissioner made an error in setting aside penalty on the ground that "two views were possible" on the question of valuation. A perusal of the records makes it clear that the difference in price between supplies made to the market (M/s. TAFE, Madras) and clearances made to appellants Hosur unit is on account of the fact that the transfers to the Hosur-unit were of semi-finished items which required further processing, while the sales to buyers is of fully finished items. Thus, there was a valid explanation for difference in prices. Penal provisions cannot be invoked in such a cases.

3. The appeal of the Revenue, therefore, has no merit. It is rejected after condoning the delay.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs U.T. Limited Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge K Usha, N T C.N.B.