Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Shreenath Prints - Court Judgment |
| Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai |
| Aug-17-2005 |
| A Wadhwa |
| Commissioner of C. Ex. |
| Shreenath Prints |
1. the respondents were working under compounded levy scheme. however, they surrendered their licence and registration certificate under their letter dated 14-12-1998. the said letter was accepted by the department on the same day. the factory was leased out to another manufacturer under an agreement dated 16-12-1998. the new manufacturer started their manufacturing activities with effect from 1-1-1999.2. proceedings initiated against the respondents for the period 16-12-1998 to 31-12-1998 were dropped by the commissioner (appeals) by observing that the respondents was no longer manufacturer during the said period and had surrendered his licence. i do not find any infirmity in the above view of the appellate authority. once an assessee stops to be a manufacturer and surrendered his licence, which also stands accepted by the revenue, there is no justification for demanding duty for the subsequent period. as such, i do not find any merits in the revenue's appeal and reject the same.
1. The respondents were working under compounded levy scheme. However, they surrendered their licence and registration certificate under their letter dated 14-12-1998. The said letter was accepted by the department on the same day. The factory was leased out to another manufacturer under an agreement dated 16-12-1998. The new manufacturer started their manufacturing activities with effect from 1-1-1999.
2. Proceedings initiated against the respondents for the period 16-12-1998 to 31-12-1998 were dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals) by observing that the respondents was no longer manufacturer during the said period and had surrendered his licence. I do not find any infirmity in the above view of the appellate authority. Once an assessee stops to be a manufacturer and surrendered his licence, which also stands accepted by the revenue, there is no justification for demanding duty for the subsequent period. As such, I do not find any merits in the revenue's appeal and reject the same.