Famous Textile Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Famous Textile vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jul 01, 2005

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39546

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/39546
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu
Decided On: Jul 01, 2005
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Famous Textile

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(190)ELT361Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. after hearing both sides and on finding that duty demand have been directed on two persons without arriving at the specific charges on whom the determination is to be effected and liability should rest.since duty is leviable on "a person" who manufactures excisable goods and the word is used in singular and not plural; the liability is required to be re-determined. we cannot uphold the finding arrived in para 15 of the impugned order to the effect - "15. in view of the above findings i hold that m/s. bhagyalaxmi processors industries and m/s. famous textile packers are jointly and severally liable to pay the duty of rs. 5,46,12,662/- under section 11a...." 2. the order is therefore set aside and the appeal allowed as remand with directions to re-hear the appellants and re-determine, all issues kept open.

Full Judgment

1. After hearing both sides and on finding that duty demand have been directed on two persons without arriving at the specific charges on whom the determination is to be effected and liability should rest.

Since duty is leviable on "a person" who manufactures excisable goods and the word is used in singular and not plural; the liability is required to be re-determined. We cannot uphold the finding arrived in para 15 of the impugned order to the effect - "15. In view of the above findings I hold that M/s. Bhagyalaxmi Processors Industries and M/s. Famous Textile Packers are jointly and severally liable to pay the duty of Rs. 5,46,12,662/- under Section 11A...." 2. The order is therefore set aside and the appeal allowed as remand with directions to re-hear the appellants and re-determine, all issues kept open.

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