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.

Alkarma Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Alkarma vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 25, 2005
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/37839

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
Arbitration

Case Summary

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

Arbitration

Key legal issue
Arbitration

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Alkarma

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(2005)(182)ELT478TriDel

Excerpt

1. the appellants are manufacturer of aluminium doors, windows and partitions etc. on 28-9-1999, the central excise officers visited the appellants' factory, and upon stock taking, pointed out certain shortages. the appellants deposited the duty due with regard to the goods found short. subsequently, on 8-8-2002, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants invoking the extended period provided under section 11a of the central excise act, 1944.2. in the present appeal, the order is being challenged on many grounds, including jurisdiction. however, the basic grievance of the appellants is about the imposition of penalty on them i.e. equivalent to the duty amount.3. we have heard both sides and gone through the record. we find that the duty demand is based only on the shortages detected at the time of stock taking by the central excise officers. there is no evidence about the clandestine removal or manufacture of the goods by the appellants.in these circumstances, the penalty was not warranted. accordingly, the penalty imposed on the appellants is set aside and the appeal is allowed to that extent. moreover, when the duty is deposited before the issuance of the show cause notice, the penalty is not permissible.

Full Judgment

1. The appellants are manufacturer of aluminium Doors, Windows and Partitions etc. On 28-9-1999, the Central Excise Officers visited the appellants' factory, and upon stock taking, pointed out certain shortages. The appellants deposited the duty due with regard to the goods found short. Subsequently, on 8-8-2002, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants invoking the extended period provided under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. In the present appeal, the Order is being challenged on many grounds, including jurisdiction. However, the basic grievance of the appellants is about the imposition of penalty on them i.e. equivalent to the duty amount.

3. We have heard both sides and gone through the record. We find that the duty demand is based only on the shortages detected at the time of stock taking by the Central Excise Officers. There is no evidence about the clandestine removal or manufacture of the goods by the appellants.

In these circumstances, the penalty was not warranted. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the appellants is set aside and the appeal is allowed to that extent. Moreover, when the duty is deposited before the issuance of the show cause notice, the penalty is not permissible.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial