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. Sterling Electricals Mfg. Co.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Sterling Electricals Mfg. Co.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jul 07, 2005
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39625

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 Mumbai
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

Sterling Electricals Mfg. Co.

Excerpt

1. the revenue is in appeal aggrieved by the order-in-original passed by the commissioner of central excise, mumbai.2. the facts in brief are that m/s. sterling electricals mfg. co. were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz. bi-metal contacts falling under chapter heading 85.38. on investigation pursuant to the intelligence that m/s. sterling electricals mfg. co. were evading central excise duty by effecting clearance of "bi-metal contact" on delivery challans of trading firms, it was found that m/s. sterling electricals mfg. co. manufactured and removed bi-metal contacts clandestinely without accounting for the production/removal in statutory records and without payment of central excise duty.therefore, a show cause notice dated 30.06.1999 was issued demanding the duty and proposing penalty and interest under section 11ab of the central excise act, 1944 and confiscation of the goods.3. on adjudication, the commissioner of central excise, mumbai, confirmed the duty and also imposed penalty as proposed in the show cause notice. the board has reviewed the order and found that the same is not correct and legal and directed the commissioner of central excise, mumbai, to file an appeal before the tribunal. hence this appeal.4. as seen from the grounds of appeal, the revenue wants implementation of provisions of section 11ac and section 11ab retrospectively.5. following the decision in the case of cce v. elgi eqipments ltd. , the appeal filed by the revenue cannot

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue is in appeal aggrieved by the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai.

2. The facts in brief are that M/s. Sterling Electricals Mfg. Co. were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz. Bi-metal contacts falling under Chapter Heading 85.38. On investigation pursuant to the intelligence that M/s. Sterling Electricals Mfg. Co. were evading Central Excise duty by effecting clearance of "Bi-Metal contact" on delivery challans of trading firms, it was found that M/s. Sterling Electricals Mfg. Co. manufactured and removed Bi-Metal contacts clandestinely without accounting for the production/removal in statutory records and without payment of Central Excise duty.

Therefore, a Show Cause Notice dated 30.06.1999 was issued demanding the duty and proposing penalty and interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and confiscation of the goods.

3. On adjudication, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, confirmed the duty and also imposed penalty as proposed in the Show Cause Notice. The Board has reviewed the order and found that the same is not correct and legal and directed the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, to file an appeal before the Tribunal. Hence this appeal.

4. As seen from the grounds of appeal, the Revenue wants implementation of provisions of Section 11AC and Section 11AB retrospectively.

5. Following the decision in the case of CCE v. Elgi Eqipments Ltd. , the appeal filed by the Revenue cannot

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial