Cce Vs. Kukreti Steels Ltd.

Cce vs Kukreti Steels Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 13, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/37746

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/37746
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: P Bajaj, M T K.C.
Decided On: Jan 13, 2005
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

Cce

Respondent

Kukreti Steels Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(99)ECC787

Excerpt

.....on the other hand, the learned counsel shri alok arora has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.6. we find from the record that at the relevant time the respondents were working under the compounded levy scheme being engaged in the manufacture of m.s. ingot and they were liable to discharge duty in terms of section 3a of the act. for the disputed period from september 1997 to march 1998, they defaulted in making payment within the stipulated period but they ultimately deposited duty alongwith interest on the receipt of the two show cause notices. the cause for delay in payment by the respondents was financial crisis and the same has been accepted by the commissioner (appeals). the imposition of penalty under fourth proviso to rule 96zp(3) on defaulting assessee is mandatory but the quantum of penalty is to be determined by the competent authority, court or tribunal by taking into consideration the attending circumstances in each case. it cannot be made universal rule or procedure that whenever any assessee commits default in making payment of duty irrespective of the cause for the same, which may even be beyond his control, the penalty equal to the amount of delayed payment of duty must be fastened on it. keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our view, the ratio of law laid down in pee aar steels (p) ltd. v. cce, meerut (supra) is not attracted to the present case. the tribunal in cce, meerut-i v. raja steels, final order no.cce, meerut v.bhagyashree steels & alloys (p) ltd. and anr., final order no.1327-1328/04-nb(a) dated 25.21.2004, have upheld the imposition of penalty even lower than the excise duty defaulted.7. in the instant case, it may also be added that the respondent had filed claim of rs. 1,25,000 for remission of duty and that was decided on 3.6.2000, when , their claim was allowed. the argument of the learned sdr that adjustment of this amount could not be given to the respondents towards outstanding.....

Full Judgment

2. In this appeal, the Revenue has contested the validity of the impugned order, only relating to the imposition of penalty amount and adjustment of abatement.

3. The learned SDR has very vehemently contended that the penalty should have been imposed equal to the amount of duty which was paid late by the respondents in view of the law laid down in the case of Pee Aar Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, 2004 (93) ECC 633. He has also contended that no adjustment of the abatement claim can be given to the respondents towards the outstanding dues.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel Shri Alok Arora has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.

6. We find from the record that at the relevant time the respondents were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme being engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingot and they were liable to discharge duty in terms of Section 3A of the Act. For the disputed period from September 1997 to March 1998, they defaulted in making payment within the stipulated period but they ultimately deposited duty alongwith interest on the receipt of the two show cause notices. The cause for delay in payment by the respondents was financial crisis and the same has been accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals). The imposition of penalty under fourth proviso to Rule 96ZP(3) on defaulting assessee is mandatory but the quantum of penalty is to be determined by the competent authority, Court or Tribunal by taking into consideration the attending circumstances in each case. It cannot be made universal rule or procedure that whenever any assessee commits default in making payment of duty irrespective of the cause for the same, which may even be beyond his control, the penalty equal to the amount of delayed payment of duty must be fastened on it. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our view, the ratio of law laid down in Pee Aar Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut (Supra) is not attracted to the present case. The Tribunal in CCE, Meerut-I v. Raja Steels, Final Order No.CCE, Meerut v.Bhagyashree Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd. and Anr., final Order No.1327-1328/04-NB(A) dated 25.21.2004, have upheld the imposition of penalty even lower than the excise duty defaulted.

7. In the instant case, it may also be added that the respondent had filed claim of Rs. 1,25,000 for remission of duty and that was decided on 3.6.2000, when , their claim was allowed. The argument of the learned SDR that adjustment of this amount could not be given to the respondents towards outstanding duty, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that when remission of duty has been allowed to them, that remission has to be adjusted towards the outstanding dues payable by the assessee.

8. In the light of the discussions made above, we find no illegality in the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced penalty to Rs. 75,000 and allowed adjustment of remission amount, to the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order as such, is upheld and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce vs Kukreti Steels Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge P Bajaj, M T K.C.