Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Steel Shree Industries

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Steel Shree Industries

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 20, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41208

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/41208
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: A Wadhwa, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Dec 20, 2005
Subject: Other Taxes

Case Summary

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

Other Taxes

Key legal issue: Other Taxes

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Steel Shree Industries

Excerpt

1. revenue is in appeal against the order of commissioner (appeals) vide which he has granted relief to the respondents in terms of notification no. 50/97-c.e., dated 1 august, 1997, as amended by notification no. 57/97-c.e., dated 30th august, 1997.2. the dispute in the present appeal relates to the quantity of hot re-rolled products lying in the assessee stock as on 31-8-97, when the compounded levy scheme was introduced w.e.f. 1-9-97. the total demand of duty confirmed by the original authority in respect of such goods was to the tune of rs. 9,518/- with penalty amount of rs. 2,500/-. the commissioner (appeals) has observed that notification no. 50/97-c.e., dated 1 august, 1997 was amended vide notification no. 57/97-c.e., as dated 30th august, 1997 vide which notification no. 50/97-c.e., dated 1 august, 1997 was made applicable to products produced prior to 1-9-97 (instead of 1-8-97) and the second change brought by the notification was that the nominal center distance was changed from 200 millimeters to 260 millimeters. accordingly, he has held that inasmuch as the goods were produced prior to 1-9-97 and there is no allegation or evidence that the nominal center distance was in excess of 160 millimeters.serial no. 3 of notification, attracting rs. 150/- per metric tone duty, would be applicable.3. revenue in their grounds of appeal have not contested or rebutted the above finding of the appellate authority. there is nothing on record to show that the distance was more than 160 millimeters.accordingly, we find no merit in the revenue's appeal and reject the same.

Full Judgment

1. Revenue is in appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has granted relief to the respondents in terms of Notification No. 50/97-C.E., dated 1 August, 1997, as amended by Notification No. 57/97-C.E., dated 30th August, 1997.

2. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the quantity of Hot Re-Rolled products lying in the assessee stock as on 31-8-97, when the Compounded Levy Scheme was introduced w.e.f. 1-9-97. The total demand of duty confirmed by the original authority in respect of such goods was to the tune of Rs. 9,518/- with penalty amount of Rs. 2,500/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that Notification No. 50/97-C.E., dated 1 August, 1997 was amended vide Notification No. 57/97-C.E., as dated 30th August, 1997 vide which Notification No. 50/97-C.E., dated 1 August, 1997 was made applicable to products produced prior to 1-9-97 (instead of 1-8-97) and the second change brought by the Notification was that the nominal center distance was changed from 200 millimeters to 260 millimeters. Accordingly, he has held that inasmuch as the goods were produced prior to 1-9-97 and there is no allegation or evidence that the nominal center distance was in excess of 160 millimeters.

Serial No. 3 of Notification, attracting Rs. 150/- per Metric Tone duty, would be applicable.

3. Revenue in their grounds of appeal have not contested or rebutted the above finding of the Appellate authority. There is nothing on record to show that the distance was more than 160 millimeters.

Accordingly, we find no merit in the Revenue's appeal and reject the same.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Steel Shree Industries Same Subject Other Taxes Same Judge A Wadhwa, N T C.N.B.