Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Krishna Filaments

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Krishna Filaments

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 28, 2005

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39508

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/39508
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu
Decided On: Jun 28, 2005
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Krishna Filaments

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(189)ELT175Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

2. respondents are an eou, who cleared goods to the dta unit. notices date 5.5.95, 25.6.95 & 13.11.95 were issued. a.c. ordered withdrawal of demands. revenue filed an appeal to cce(a). cce(a) found that no evidence or details of the market enquiry was indelicate in the show cause notice and in absence of such details there was no scope to apply rule 6(b)(i) of valuation rules and rejected the appeal. revenue is again come up in appeal to the tribunal.3. perusal of the grounds do not indicate any material which could be relied upon to upset the cce(a) order. mere assertion that the assessee has not refuted the market price quoted in the notice will not induce us to upset the order. moreover, for valuation of removals from a dta the market price in india is not relevant to arrive at a valuation required as prescribed under second proviso to section 3 of the central excise act, 1944. therefore, we find no reason to uphold the valuation as proposed in the notice and differential demands made on basis of the assessable values of comparable goods manufactured by one m/s sunil plastic of dhule in this case.

Full Judgment

2. Respondents are an EOU, who cleared goods to the DTA unit. Notices date 5.5.95, 25.6.95 & 13.11.95 were issued. A.C. ordered withdrawal of demands. Revenue filed an appeal to CCE(A). CCE(A) found that no evidence or details of the market enquiry was indelicate in the show cause notice and in absence of such details there was no scope to apply Rule 6(b)(I) of valuation rules and rejected the appeal. Revenue is again come up in appeal to the Tribunal.

3. Perusal of the grounds do not indicate any material which could be relied upon to upset the CCE(A) order. Mere assertion that the assessee has not refuted the market price quoted in the notice will not induce us to upset the order. Moreover, for valuation of removals from a DTA the market price in India is not relevant to arrive at a valuation required as prescribed under second proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, we find no reason to uphold the valuation as proposed in the notice and differential demands made on basis of the assessable values of comparable goods manufactured by one M/s Sunil Plastic of Dhule in this case.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Krishna Filaments Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu