Shroff Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Shroff Textiles Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 02, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/35477

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/35477
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, A M Moheb
Decided On: Jun 02, 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

Shroff Textiles Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(98)ECC13

Excerpt

1. the appellants manufacture expanded polythene sheet bonded with pvc jute mat. this product is transferred from their tarapur factory to their andheri factory for carrying out further processes resulting in the manufacture of another product known as assy floor mat. a show cause notice dated 18th june, 1996 was issued to the appellants, proposing recovery of duty of rs. 1,96,000/- on the ground that the assessable value of the product was required to be worked out at rs. 113.74 per square metre. the assistant commissioner confirmed the demand raised in the notice and also imposed a penalty of rs. 5,000/-; the commissioner (appeals) upheld his order; hence this appeal before the tribunal.2. the appellants have sought for an adjournment by their letter dated 26.5.2004; however, since the issue is a simple one, we decline to grant adjournment and proceed to decide the case after hearing the learned dr and perusing the records.3. the appellants did not file price declaration as covered by the second proviso to rule 173c of the central excise rules as per cbec circular dated 21.3.1994 which prescribed a new proforma in annexure i, ii & iii. revised costing of the product was submitted by the appellants but they did not take into consideration invoices referred to by the range superintendent for the cost of the product. the appellants did not submit any clarification as to why the invoices considered by the range superintendent should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of costing of the product. hence, the differential duty is rightly payable by the appellants. however, the assessable value as well as the duty liability thereafter is required to be recomputed, in the light of the larger bench decision in the case of dai ichi karkaria ltd. v. cce 1996 (81) elt 676 (t) which has been upheld by the supreme court as seen from 1999 (112) elt 353 (sc).4. in the result, while upholding the demand of differential duty, we remand the matter for recomputation,.....

Full Judgment

1. The appellants manufacture expanded polythene sheet bonded with PVC jute mat. This product is transferred from their Tarapur factory to their Andheri factory for carrying out further processes resulting in the manufacture of another product known as Assy floor mat. A show cause notice dated 18th June, 1996 was issued to the appellants, proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 1,96,000/- on the ground that the assessable value of the product was required to be worked out at Rs. 113.74 per square metre. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand raised in the notice and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-; the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld his order; hence this appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The appellants have sought for an adjournment by their letter dated 26.5.2004; however, since the issue is a simple one, we decline to grant adjournment and proceed to decide the case after hearing the learned DR and perusing the records.

3. The appellants did not file price declaration as covered by the second proviso to Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules as per CBEC circular dated 21.3.1994 which prescribed a new proforma in annexure I, II & III. Revised costing of the product was submitted by the appellants but they did not take into consideration invoices referred to by the range Superintendent for the cost of the product. The appellants did not submit any clarification as to why the invoices considered by the range Superintendent should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of costing of the product. Hence, the differential duty is rightly payable by the appellants. However, the assessable value as well as the duty liability thereafter is required to be recomputed, in the light of the larger bench decision in the case of Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. v. CCE 1996 (81) ELT 676 (T) which has been upheld by the Supreme Court as seen from 1999 (112) ELT 353 (SC).

4. In the result, while upholding the demand of differential duty, we remand the matter for recomputation, in the light of the larger bench decision cited supra.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Shroff Textiles Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge J Balasundaram, A M Moheb