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.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree Kurele Chemical Co.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Shree Kurele Chemical Co.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Apr 21, 2005
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/38821

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
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

Shree Kurele Chemical Co.

Legal References

Reported In
(2005)(189)ELT319TriDel

Excerpt

1. in this appeal the revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order vide which the commissioner (appeals) has allowed the refund of duty of rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondents which they deposited with the department at the time of taking central excise licence for the manufacture of pan masala.2. i have heard both the sides. there is no dispute regarding the deposit of above mentioned amount by the respondents with the department. this deposit was made by them at the time when they took the central excise registration for manufacture of pan masala etc. but they never started after the installation of the machinery, the production of the goods. they rather surrendered the licence to the department. no evidence has been collected by the revenue to prove that the respondents even, manufactured the excisable goods and cleared the same. no such inference from mere installation of machinery by them, could be raised that they indulged in the manufacture of excisable goods. therefore, commissioner (appeals) has rightly ordered the refund of the amount to the respondents. the board circular dated 30-5-95 referred by the dr has no bearing on the facts of the case, as the same relates to the payment of interest in respect of the delayed refunds.keeping in view the above referred discussion, the impugned order is upheld and appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal the revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund of duty of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondents which they deposited with the Department at the time of taking Central Excise Licence for the manufacture of Pan Masala.

2. I have heard both the sides. There is no dispute regarding the deposit of above mentioned amount by the respondents with the Department. This deposit was made by them at the time when they took the Central Excise Registration for manufacture of Pan Masala etc. but they never started after the installation of the machinery, the production of the goods. They rather surrendered the licence to the Department. No evidence has been collected by the revenue to prove that the respondents even, manufactured the excisable goods and cleared the same. No such inference from mere installation of machinery by them, could be raised that they indulged in the manufacture of excisable goods. Therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly ordered the refund of the amount to the respondents. The Board Circular dated 30-5-95 referred by the DR has no bearing on the facts of the case, as the same relates to the payment of interest in respect of the delayed refunds.

Keeping in view the above referred discussion, the impugned order is upheld and appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial