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.

Cce Vs. Usha India Ltd.

Cce vs Usha India Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 15, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/35949

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 Delhi
Judge
Decided On
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

Cce

Respondent

Usha India Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(95)ECC569

Excerpt

1. heard both sides. revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals). the respondent also filed cross objection seeking reduction in redemption fine.2. brief facts of the case are that on 11.9.2000, the officers of revenue deptt. intercepted two vehicles and 38 boxes of transistors valued at rs. 5,39,610 were recovered. shri rajesh nakra produced same invoice showing the clearance of these transistors and on verification it was found that invoice contained to some other unit at bhagirath place. as the goods were cleared without payment of duty, therefore, the goods were seized. the jurisdictional authority confiscated the goods and allowed the same on redemption fine of rs. 1,35,000 and imposed a penalty of rs. 50,000 each on respondents. a penalty of rs. 25,000 was also imposed on shri rajesh nakra. an appeal filed by the appellant, commissioner (appeals) set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant.2. contention of the revenue is that as the goods were cleared without payment of duty, therefore, they are also liable for penal action. in the cross objections, the contention of the respondent is that the total duty involved in this case is rs. 1,09,379 and redemption fine is excessive. the respondent had not contested the demand of duty before commissioner (appeals).3. in this case the goods were cleared without payment of duty, the appellant produced an invoice to show the payment of duty. this invoice pertains to other unit and also relates to some other goods. in these circumstances, i find that respondents are liable for penal action. a penalty of rs. 10,000 on usha (india) ltd., electronic division and rs. 5,000 on usha india ltd., samsung division is imposed.4. in respect of redemption fine taking value of goods, i find no merit in the cross objection, the same is dismissed. the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed as indicated above.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent also filed Cross Objection seeking reduction in redemption fine.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.9.2000, the officers of Revenue Deptt. intercepted two vehicles and 38 boxes of transistors valued at Rs. 5,39,610 were recovered. Shri Rajesh Nakra produced same invoice showing the clearance of these transistors and on verification it was found that invoice contained to some other unit at Bhagirath Place. As the goods were cleared without payment of duty, therefore, the goods were seized. The jurisdictional authority confiscated the goods and allowed the same on redemption fine of Rs. 1,35,000 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 each on respondents. A penalty of Rs. 25,000 was also imposed on Shri Rajesh Nakra. An appeal filed by the appellant, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant.

2. Contention of the Revenue is that as the goods were cleared without payment of duty, therefore, they are also liable for penal action. In the Cross Objections, the contention of the respondent is that the total duty involved in this case is Rs. 1,09,379 and redemption fine is excessive. The respondent had not contested the demand of duty before Commissioner (Appeals).

3. In this case the goods were cleared without payment of duty, The appellant produced an invoice to show the payment of duty. This invoice pertains to other unit and also relates to some other goods. In these circumstances, I find that respondents are liable for penal action. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 on Usha (India) Ltd., Electronic Division and Rs. 5,000 on Usha India Ltd., Samsung Division is imposed.

4. In respect of redemption fine taking value of goods, I find no merit in the Cross Objection, the same is dismissed. The appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed as indicated above.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial