Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kamal Steel Rolling Mills

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Kamal Steel Rolling Mills

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 29, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/37550

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/37550
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: M T K.C.
Decided On: Dec 29, 2004
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Kamal Steel Rolling Mills

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(98)ECC513

Excerpt

.....pleaded that the decision on which the commissioner (appeals) has placed reliance are with reference to the notification no. 42/98 in respect of hot air stenter independent textile processors annual capacity determination rules, whereas in the present case, the respondents are steel rolling mills who are working under 96zp(3) of the central excise rules. the tribunal in the case of cce, chandigarh v. vivek re-rolling mills has discussed this issue and came to the conclusion that the decision in the beauty dyers will not be applicable to the facts of the present matter. he also relied on the decision of the allahabad high court in the case of pee aar steels (p) ltd. v. cce, meerut wherein it was held that penalty has to be imposed whenever any manufacturer fails to pay the amount of duty for any month by the 10th of such month. he, therefore, pleaded that in view of these decisions, the commissioner (appeals) order setting aside the penalty is not in accordance with law. no one appeared for the respondents.3. i find that the order of the commissioner (appeals relying on the decision of the madras high court in the case of beauty dyers v. union of india (supra) is not according to the law. the issue involved has already been decided by the tribunal in the case of cce, chandigarh v.vivek rerolling mills distinguishing the judgment of the madras high court in the case beauty dyers. therefore, the order of the commissioner (appeals) is set aside and case is remanded back to him to reconsider imposition of appropriate penalty in view of the decision of the allahabad high court in the case of pee aar steels (p) ltd. v.commissioner of central excise, meerut. ordered

Full Judgment

1. Revenue has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of his setting aside of the penalty on the respondents relying on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Beauty Dyers v. Union of India 2002 (52) RLT 635 and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shree Sai Prasad Dyeing and Printing Mills v.CCE 2. Shri P.M. Rao, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue pleaded that the decision on which the Commissioner (Appeals) has placed reliance are with reference to the Notification No. 42/98 in respect of Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, whereas in the present case, the respondents are steel rolling mills who are working under 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Vivek Re-rolling Mills has discussed this issue and came to the conclusion that the decision in the Beauty Dyers will not be applicable to the facts of the present matter. He also relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pee Aar Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut wherein it was held that penalty has to be imposed whenever any manufacturer fails to pay the amount of duty for any month by the 10th of such month. He, therefore, pleaded that in view of these decisions, the Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside the penalty is not in accordance with law. No one appeared for the respondents.

3. I find that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals relying on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Beauty Dyers v. Union of India (supra) is not according to the law. The issue involved has already been decided by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v.Vivek Rerolling Mills distinguishing the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case Beauty Dyers. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and case is remanded back to him to reconsider imposition of appropriate penalty in view of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pee Aar Steels (P) Ltd. v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut. Ordered

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Kamal Steel Rolling Mills Same Subject Excise Same Judge M T K.C.