Spread Coating Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Spread Coating Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Aug 09, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39941

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/39941
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: P Bajaj
Decided On: Aug 09, 2005
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Spread Coating Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(190)ELT349TriDel

Excerpt

.....samples and of rs. 2042/- leviable on resin samples against the appellants, cannot be sustained. the demand of both these amounts have been confirmed against the appellants on the ground that they had disposed of the samples of the paints and resins in a clandestine manner without payment of duty. but there is no tangible evidence on the record to substantiate this ground. the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pants on job work basis for m/s. berger paints india ltd. during the period in dispute (1-4-98 to 31-12-2001), while manufacturing the paints, they kept samples of the paints and the resins. the entries were made by them in their sample register and the correctness of the same has not been questioned by the deptt. according to the appellants, those samples were decanted by mixing the same with the paints mixture during the course of manufacture, after the expiry of one year period.their version had not been rebutted by the revenue by bringing on record any material evidence. the only allegation made in the scn is that the samples had been disposed of by them in a clandestine manner, but when and to whom remains undisclosed. the names of the buyers had not been identified in the scn, no incriminating document in this regard was also found in the factory premises of the appellants. no excess or shortage of raw material or finished goods was also detected by the officers in the factory premises. under these circumstances, the above said version of the appellants is to be accepted. the impugned order confirming the duty demand amount with penalties as detailed there in respect of the samples of the paints resins cannot be sustained and is set aside.4. consequently, the impugned order accordingly stands modified. the appeal of the appellants stands disposed of in the above terms.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the duty demand and denial of Modvat credit against the appellants.

2. I have heard both the sides. The record shows that the credit of Rs. 28,800/- has been disallowed to the appellants on the inputs covered under the Invoice No. 265, dated 27-9-99 as the same was no in their name but in the name of M/s. Berger Paint India Ltd. This wrong availment of credit was not even disputed by the appellants before the authorities below and they have already reversed the credit of the above said amount. Therefore, the impugned order in this regard is affirmed.

3. However duty demand of Rs. 36,755/- in respect of the paints samples and of Rs. 2042/- leviable on resin samples against the appellants, cannot be sustained. The demand of both these amounts have been confirmed against the appellants on the ground that they had disposed of the samples of the paints and resins in a clandestine manner without payment of duty. But there is no tangible evidence on the record to substantiate this ground. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pants on job work basis for M/s. Berger Paints India Ltd. during the period in dispute (1-4-98 to 31-12-2001), while manufacturing the paints, they kept samples of the paints and the resins. The entries were made by them in their sample register and the correctness of the same has not been questioned by the Deptt. According to the appellants, those samples were decanted by mixing the same with the paints mixture during the course of manufacture, after the expiry of one year period.

Their version had not been rebutted by the revenue by bringing on record any material evidence. The only allegation made in the SCN is that the samples had been disposed of by them in a clandestine manner, but when and to whom remains undisclosed. The names of the buyers had not been identified in the SCN, no incriminating document in this regard was also found in the factory premises of the appellants. No excess or shortage of raw material or finished goods was also detected by the officers in the factory premises. Under these circumstances, the above said version of the appellants is to be accepted. The impugned order confirming the duty demand amount with penalties as detailed there in respect of the samples of the paints resins cannot be sustained and is set aside.

4. Consequently, the impugned order accordingly stands modified. The appeal of the appellants stands disposed of in the above terms.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Spread Coating Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge P Bajaj