Dcm Engineering Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Dcm Engineering Products vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 23, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41261

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/41261
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: R Abichandani, M T K.C.
Decided On: Dec 23, 2005
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dcm Engineering Products

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2006)(106)ECC112

Excerpt

1. the applicants are seeking stay from recovery of duty of rs. 7,30,270/- and penalty of equal amount confirmed by the commissioner under the impugned order.2. it was argued that the applicants had not included the value of moulds and dies used by them in the manufacture of castings. the department had issued show cause notice to them demanding duty for the period of 5 years. order was passed by the commissioner which was challenged by them before the tribunal. the tribunal held that the period of 5 years is not applicable and the duty should be computed only for six months and the applicants should pay the duty. the commissioner on the direction of the tribunal computed the duty for six months which is in dispute under the impugned order. it was argued for the applicants that the commissioner while computing the duty for six months has taken certain customers whose moulds and dies were not the subject matter of the original show cause notice and thus has wrongly calculated the duty chargeable from she applicants. the applicants have agreed that the amount of rs. 4,55,494/-has been correctly computed.they have already deposited this amount. the balance amount is claimed to be not covered by the original show cause notice. this amount has been wrongly calculated in respect of those customers who were not the subject matter of the original show cause notice. the revenue also could not show that the amount which is being contested was covered by the original show cause notice.3. therefore, keeping in view the dispute, we find that the matter requires detailed examination regarding the balance amount in dispute.therefore, we allow waiver of this amount and penalty for hearing of the appeal.4. the appeal will come up for hearing in due course. the stay application is disposed of accordingly.

Full Judgment

1. The applicants are seeking stay from recovery of duty of Rs. 7,30,270/- and penalty of equal amount confirmed by the Commissioner under the impugned order.

2. It was argued that the applicants had not included the value of moulds and dies used by them in the manufacture of castings. The department had issued show cause notice to them demanding duty for the period of 5 years. Order was passed by the Commissioner which was challenged by them before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the period of 5 years is not applicable and the duty should be computed only for six months and the applicants should pay the duty. The Commissioner on the direction of the Tribunal computed the duty for six months which is in dispute under the impugned order. It was argued for the applicants that the Commissioner while computing the duty for six months has taken certain customers whose moulds and dies were not the subject matter of the original show cause notice and thus has wrongly calculated the duty chargeable from She applicants. The applicants have agreed that the amount of Rs. 4,55,494/-has been correctly computed.

They have already deposited this amount. The balance amount is claimed to be not covered by the original show cause notice. This amount has been wrongly calculated in respect of those customers who were not the subject matter of the original show cause notice. The Revenue also could not show that the amount which is being contested was covered by the original show cause notice.

3. Therefore, keeping in view the dispute, we find that the matter requires detailed examination regarding the balance amount in dispute.

Therefore, we allow waiver of this amount and penalty for hearing of the appeal.

4. The appeal will come up for hearing in due course. The stay application is disposed of accordingly.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Dcm Engineering Products vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject MRTP Same Judge R Abichandani, M T K.C.