Cce Vs. Gajra Gears Pvt. Ltd.

Cce vs Gajra Gears Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jun 21, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39421

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/39421
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: P Bajaj
Decided On: Jun 21, 2005
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Gajra Gears Pvt. Ltd.

Excerpt

1. in this appeal the revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order vide which the commissioner (appeals) has set aside the confiscation of excess goods found in the factory of the respondents, dropped the redemption fine and penalty under section 11ac of the act.i have heard learned jdr. shri s. mani appearing on behalf of the respondents, has requested for decision on merit.2. from the record it is evident that the factory premises of the respondents was visited by the officers on 5.9.97 and during the course of physical verification of the stock, finished goods were found short involving duty of rs. 17,442/- and 2,19,450/-. this shortage was accepted by the respondents and they deposited the duty. similarly certain goods were found in excess which wore not entered in rg-1 register and the same were seized. the adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed penal y of equal amount under section 11ac.that authority also disallowed the modvat credit and ordered confiscation of the goods, imposed redemption fine of rs. 15,000/-, besides imposing penalty of rs. 15,000/- under section 173q. the commissioner (appeals) has confirmed the duty against the respondents, but dropped the penalty against them under section 11ac, and set aside the confiscation of the excess goods, reduced the penalty from rs. 15,000/- to rs. 10,000/- under rule 173q.3. after having affirmed the order-in-original regarding confirmation of duty amount against the respondents, the commissioner (appeals) could not set aside the penalties. the impugned order in this regard is legally not maintainable and deserves to be modified. the adjudicating authority imposed penalties of rs. 17,442/- and 2,19,450/-in respect of short found goods. but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and payment of duty by the respondents, both these penalties are reduced to rs. 10,000/- and 50,000/- respectively. similarly the impugned order regarding setting aside of.....

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal the Revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned Order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the confiscation of excess goods found in the factory of the Respondents, dropped the redemption fine and penalty under Section 11AC of the Act.

I have heard learned JDR. Shri S. Mani appearing on behalf of the Respondents, has requested for decision on merit.

2. From the record it is evident that the factory premises of the Respondents was visited by the Officers on 5.9.97 and during the course of physical verification of the stock, finished goods were found short involving duty of Rs. 17,442/- and 2,19,450/-. This shortage was accepted by the Respondents and they deposited the duty. Similarly certain goods were found in excess which wore not entered in RG-1 register and the same were seized. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed penal y of equal amount under Section 11AC.That authority also disallowed the Modvat Credit and ordered confiscation of the goods, imposed redemption fine of Rs. 15,000/-, besides imposing penalty of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 173Q. The Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the duty against the Respondents, but dropped the penalty against them under Section 11AC, and set aside the confiscation of the excess goods, reduced the penalty from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q.3. After having affirmed the Order-in-Original regarding confirmation of duty amount against the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not set aside the penalties. The impugned Order in this regard is legally not maintainable and deserves to be modified. The Adjudicating Authority imposed penalties of Rs. 17,442/- and 2,19,450/-in respect of short found goods. But keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and payment of duty by the Respondents, both these penalties are reduced to Rs. 10,000/- and 50,000/- respectively. Similarly the impugned Order regarding setting aside of confiscation of the excess goods, found in the factory of the respondents, is not legally sustainable. The Respondents did not contest the fact that the goods were found in excess in their factory which were not accounted for in their RG-1 register. Therefore, those goods were liable to be confiscated under the law. The impugned Order in this regard is set aside and the Order of the Adjudicating Authority is restored. However, the redemption fine, keeping in view the duty involved on those goods, is reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. However, no interference in the reduction of penalty made by the Commissioner (Appeals) from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q is called for the impugned Order accordingly stands modified. The appeal of the Revenue stands disposed in above terms.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce vs Gajra Gears Pvt. Ltd. Same Subject Excise Same Judge P Bajaj