M.B. Enterprise Vs. Commissioner of Customs

M.B. Enterprise vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 21, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/40322

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/40322
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice-, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Sep 21, 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

M.B. Enterprise

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(190)ELT403TriDel

Excerpt

1. applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of rs. 2 lakhs. the contention of the applicant is that goods seized from their premises and the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods on the ground that there was no stickers to show mrp on the goods, therefore, they violated the notification no.44(re-2000)/1997-2000 dated 24-11-2000. the contention of the revenue is also that the goods in question are not the same goods, which were imported under the bill of entry, which were imported by the appellant.the contention of the applicant is that the goods are button/pencil cells and watch parts and they are legally imported into india and as per notification no. 44(re-2000)/1997-2000 dated 24-11-2000 at the time of clearance the mrp is to be written on the goods. the contention is that the goods were cleared from the custom house under the proper documents. therefore, subsequent to the clearance, the revenue has no authority to seize the goods on the ground that these are not having mrp stickers. the contention is also that all the relevant documents were produced regarding the legal import of the goods and no enquiry was conducted from the importers. in these circumstances, we find that the applicant had a strong case in their favour. therefore, the pre-deposit of whole of the amount of penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal. stay petition is allowed.

Full Judgment

1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs. The contention of the applicant is that goods seized from their premises and the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods on the ground that there was no stickers to show MRP on the goods, therefore, they violated the Notification No.44(RE-2000)/1997-2000 dated 24-11-2000. The contention of the Revenue is also that the goods in question are not the same goods, which were imported under the Bill of Entry, which were imported by the appellant.

The contention of the applicant is that the goods are button/pencil cells and watch parts and they are legally imported into India and as per Notification No. 44(RE-2000)/1997-2000 dated 24-11-2000 at the time of clearance the MRP is to be written on the goods. The contention is that the goods were cleared from the Custom House under the proper documents. Therefore, subsequent to the clearance, the Revenue has no authority to seize the goods on the ground that these are not having MRP stickers. The contention is also that all the relevant documents were produced regarding the legal import of the goods and no enquiry was conducted from the importers. In these circumstances, we find that the applicant had a strong case in their favour. Therefore, the pre-deposit of whole of the amount of penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal. Stay petition is allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties M.B. Enterprise vs Commissioner of Customs Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S Kang, Vice-, N T C.N.B.