Bhupendra Steels Ltd. Vs. Cce

Bhupendra Steels Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 24, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/37831

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/37831
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Jan 24, 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

Bhupendra Steels Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Excerpt

.....of central excise act, the place of removal in such a case is the premises of the consignment agent. the value charged by the consignment agent becomes he normal price and duty is payable on that price whereas the appellant has paid duty at ex-factory price which is lower than the consignment agent price.2. the contentions of the appellant is that the demand is for the period 28.9.96 to 30.6.2000 and scn was issued r.t. 12 returns indicating the sale through consignment agents, therefore, there is no intention of the part of the appellant to evade payment of duty. the appellant also filed the statutory declaration showing marketing pattern, under rule 173c of central excise rules and in these declarations it was clearly indicated that apart from factory sale gate, the appellants were also effecting sales through consignment agent, therefore, the revenue was fully aware both before and after 28.9.96 in respect of the nature of the transaction. the contention of the appellants is that in these circumstances, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.3. the contention of the revenue is that as appellants were clearing the goods through their agents, therefore, demand was rightly made.4. in this case the demand is confirmed by invoking the extended period on the ground that as the appellants were clearing the goods through consignment agents, therefore, the rice at which the consignment agents is clearing the goods is the normal price on which the duty is to be paid. the contention of the appellant is that demand is time barred and extended period is not invokable, as appellant duty informed the revenue in respect of their marketing pattern. the declaration under rule 173c of central excise rules was filed on 14.12.96where it was clearly mentioned that goods were cleared through consignment agents.the appellants were also filing regularly rt 12 returns showing the clearance of the goods through consignment agents. these aspects were not gone into by the.....

Full Judgment

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants were clearing the goods through consignment agents, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 4(4)(b)(iii) of Central Excise Act, the place of removal in such a case is the premises of the Consignment agent. The value charged by the consignment agent becomes he normal price and duty is payable on that price whereas the appellant has paid duty at ex-factory price which is lower than the consignment agent price.

2. The contentions of the appellant is that the demand is for the period 28.9.96 to 30.6.2000 and SCN was issued R.T. 12 returns indicating the sale through consignment agents, therefore, there is no intention of the part of the appellant to evade payment of duty. The appellant also filed the statutory declaration showing marketing pattern, under Rule 173C of Central Excise rules and in these declarations it was clearly indicated that apart from factory sale gate, the appellants were also effecting sales through consignment agent, therefore, the revenue was fully aware both before and after 28.9.96 in respect of the nature of the transaction. The contention of the appellants is that in these circumstances, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.

3. The contention of the Revenue is that as appellants were clearing the goods through their agents, therefore, demand was rightly made.

4. In this case the demand is confirmed by invoking the extended period on the ground that as the appellants were clearing the goods through consignment agents, therefore, the rice at which the consignment agents is clearing the goods is the normal price on which the duty is to be paid. The contention of the appellant is that demand is time barred and extended period is not invokable, as appellant duty informed the revenue in respect of their marketing pattern. The declaration under Rule 173C of Central Excise Rules was filed on 14.12.96where it was clearly mentioned that goods were cleared through consignment agents.

The appellants were also filing regularly RT 12 returns showing the clearance of the goods through consignment agents. These aspects were not gone into by the adjudicating authority. The declaration filed on 14.12.96 is not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, we find that it is a fit case for reconsideration. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority and will decide after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Bhupendra Steels Ltd. vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S Kang, Vice, N T C.N.B.