Krcd (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Krcd (i) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 12, 2005

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39052

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/39052
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu
Decided On: May 12, 2005
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Krcd (i) Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(188)ELT91Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. after hearing both sides and considering the matter it transpire that the main appeal could be disposed at this stage. therefore after waiver of pre-deposit the appeal is taken up for disposal.2. a perusal of the order reveals that royalty additions at 55% are loaded by the commissioner. however the basis of arriving at this figure of 55% does not appear from the order to be sustained on any acceptable logic. the plea of the ld. dr that the appellants did not produce the balance sheets of their suppliers cannot be a cause to load values arbitrarily. the officers had all the powers of summon, search to obtain the documents required. that can be now exercised, if required, in the remand which we propose to order since orders on arbitrary acts cannot be sustained.3. order set aside and appeal allowed as remand to the adjudicator keeping all issues open to both sides to re-determine in de novo proceedings. application also stand disposed.

Full Judgment

1. After hearing both sides and considering the matter it transpire that the main appeal could be disposed at this stage. Therefore after waiver of pre-deposit the appeal is taken up for disposal.

2. A perusal of the order reveals that royalty additions at 55% are loaded by the Commissioner. However the basis of arriving at this figure of 55% does not appear from the order to be sustained on any acceptable logic. The plea of the ld. DR that the appellants did not produce the Balance Sheets of their suppliers cannot be a cause to load values arbitrarily. The officers had all the powers of summon, search to obtain the documents required. That can be now exercised, if required, in the remand which we propose to order since orders on arbitrary acts cannot be sustained.

3. Order set aside and appeal allowed as Remand to the adjudicator keeping all issues open to both sides to re-determine in de novo proceedings. Application also stand disposed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Krcd (i) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Excise Same Judge S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu