Siachen India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Siachen India vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Dec 20, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/37459

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/37459
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: K Kumar, A M Moheb
Decided On: Dec 20, 2004
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Siachen India

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(191)ELT276Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....commissioner demanded rs. 46,14,206/- towards duty and imposed a similar amount of penalty. he also imposed redemption fine of rs. 80,000/- on the goods confiscated on the ground that the goods were clandestinely removed.2. the applicant is a manufacturer of laminated manmade and cotton fabrics falling under chapter 59 of the central excise tariff act, 1985. certain goods which were removed without payment of duty were seized and later the factory of the applicant was searched and incriminating documents were also seized. during the course of investigation before the issue of show cause notice, the applicant paid an amount of rs. 3,40,000/-and rs. 44,844/- being the duty leviable on the goods on which duty was not discharged. the main grounds in the stay application are that the adjudication proceedings were conducted ex parte without giving opportunity to the applicant to be heard.secondly, the commissioner confirmed the demand, according to the applicant, on the evidence gathered in the private diary or notebook without there being independent cogent evidence with regard to production, enquiries with the buyers, use of electricity, labour etc.financial hardship was also pleaded during the course of hearing.4. we observe that at some stage of the proceedings, the applicant approached the settlement commission to settle the dispute but, however, did not pursue the matter with the settlement commission who dismissed the application for settlement. it is also seen that the applicant himself agrees that there is positive evidence of evasion where the duty involved is rs. 11,26,974.54. thus, it appears that the applicant himself agrees that there is clandestine removal to that extent. normally we would have directed the applicant to deposit this amount for the purpose of section 35f of the central excise act. during the course of hearing, it was pleaded that the unit was closed and the applicant was retired as an army officer who does not have any means to deposit.....

Full Judgment

1. The stay application arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-VI. In the impugned order, the Commissioner demanded Rs. 46,14,206/- towards duty and imposed a similar amount of penalty. He also imposed redemption fine of Rs. 80,000/- on the goods confiscated on the ground that the goods were clandestinely removed.

2. The applicant is a manufacturer of laminated manmade and cotton fabrics falling under Chapter 59 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Certain goods which were removed without payment of duty were seized and later the factory of the applicant was searched and incriminating documents were also seized. During the course of investigation before the issue of show cause notice, the applicant paid an amount of Rs. 3,40,000/-and Rs. 44,844/- being the duty leviable on the goods on which duty was not discharged. The main grounds in the stay application are that the adjudication proceedings were conducted ex parte without giving opportunity to the applicant to be heard.

Secondly, the Commissioner confirmed the demand, according to the applicant, on the evidence gathered in the private diary or notebook without there being independent cogent evidence with regard to production, enquiries with the buyers, use of electricity, labour etc.

Financial hardship was also pleaded during the course of hearing.

4. We observe that at some stage of the proceedings, the applicant approached the Settlement Commission to settle the dispute but, however, did not pursue the matter with the Settlement Commission who dismissed the application for settlement. It is also seen that the applicant himself agrees that there is positive evidence of evasion where the duty involved is Rs. 11,26,974.54. Thus, it appears that the applicant himself agrees that there is clandestine removal to that extent. Normally we would have directed the applicant to deposit this amount for the purpose of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. During the course of hearing, it was pleaded that the unit was closed and the applicant was retired as an Army Officer who does not have any means to deposit Rs. 11 lakhs and odd. Considering all the aspects, we direct the applicant to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs by 31.1.2005 towards duty. While directing so, we have taken into consideration that an amount of approximately Rs. 3 lakhs was already paid by the applicant. Upon deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs as directed, further deposit of duty and penalty is waived during the course of this appeal. Non-compliance with these directions would result in dismissal of the appeal itself.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Siachen India vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Excise Same Judge K Kumar, A M Moheb

Excise Positive evidence Cotton fabrics ex parte Out of