Neelam Micro Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Neelam Micro Electronics vs Commissioner of Customs and

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 31, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/35439

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/35439
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: A Wadhwa, M T K.D.
Decided On: May 31, 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

Neelam Micro Electronics

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs and

Excerpt

1. on matter being called nobody appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of today's notice of hearing having been issued well in advance. we also note from records that the matter has been coming up on board from 13/01/2004 onwards and on all the four occasions the appellants sought adjournment. as such we have ourselves gone through the impugned order and have heard shri k.k. srivasatava, learned dr for the revenue.2. the short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the emergence of computers at the appellant's premises by assembling of various parts bought out by the appellants themselves amounts to manufacture or not the commissioner (appeals) has granted benefit to the appellants wherever the parts were supplied by the appellants at the premises of their customers and the assembling was undertaken at the customer's premises. we note that the amount of duty is only to the extent of rs. 1,53,465.00. the issue involved is arguable. no final view can be taken at this stage. suffice it to say that the appellants have not been able to make out any prima facie case for full waiver of duly and penalty. no financial hardship has been pleaded in the stay petition and no evidence in support of the same has been placed on record. as such taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case we direct the appellant to deposit an amount of rs. 75,000/-within a period of 8 weeks from today and report compliance on 27th july, 2004. subject to depositing the above amount, the condition of pre-deposit of balance amount of duty and the entire amount of penalty is dispensed with and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal. we make it clear that non-compliance with the above order would result in automatic dismissal of the appeal without any further notice to the appellants.

Full Judgment

1. On matter being called nobody appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of today's notice of hearing having been issued well in advance. We also note from records that the matter has been coming up on board from 13/01/2004 onwards and on all the four occasions the appellants sought adjournment. As such we have ourselves gone through the impugned order and have heard Shri K.K. Srivasatava, learned DR for the Revenue.

2. The short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the emergence of computers at the appellant's premises by assembling of various parts bought out by the appellants themselves amounts to manufacture or not The Commissioner (Appeals) has granted benefit to the appellants wherever the parts were supplied by the appellants at the premises of their customers and the assembling was undertaken at the customer's premises. We note that the amount of duty is only to the extent of Rs. 1,53,465.00. The issue involved is arguable. No final view can be taken at this stage. Suffice it to say that the appellants have not been able to make out any prima facie case for full waiver of duly and penalty. No financial hardship has been pleaded in the stay petition and no evidence in support of the same has been placed on record. As such taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case we direct the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 75,000/-within a period of 8 weeks from today and report compliance on 27th July, 2004. Subject to depositing the above amount, the condition of pre-deposit of balance amount of duty and the entire amount of penalty is dispensed with and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal. We make it clear that non-compliance with the above order would result in automatic dismissal of the appeal without any further notice to the appellants.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Neelam Micro Electronics vs Commissioner of Customs and Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge A Wadhwa, M T K.D.