Methods India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Methods India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Decided Dec 28, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41310

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/41310
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Judge: S Peeran
Decided On: Dec 28, 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

Methods India Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

.....court and by the board's circular that the department should not take any coercive steps when the stay application is pending before the tribunal. he points out that the entire duty amount and 50% of the penalty amount have already been paid and balance amount towards penalty is rs. 3 lakhs and interest is rs. 2 lakhs. he submits that the value of the entire plant and machinery and goods is around rs. 10 crores and the revenue's interest is sufficiently safeguarded.2. the learned sdr defends the action of the assistant commissioner on the ground that the revenue was required to be recovered.3. on a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, the tribunal is of the view that the action of the assistant commissioner is clearly a high handed action, which was totally uncalled, for the reason that the entire duty amount and 50% of the penalty amount had already been paid by the party. balance amount is only 5 lakhs. as a practice, the tribunal does not insist on pre-deposit of pelalty ammunt. in the present case, 50% of the penalty amount has already been paid. therefore in such a situation, the action of the assistant commissioner cannot be appreciated. the miscellaneous application is allowed. the stay application to come up for heaping on 10th january 2006. the revenue is directed to lift the detention order forthwith and not to take any"coercive steps till the disposal of the stay application. registry is directed to issue this order by hand to the learned chartered accountant forthwith.

Full Judgment

1. The appellants had filed the appeal along with the stay petition.

Before the stay petition could be taken up for hearing by the Tribunal, in the meanwhile, the Authority has passed a Detention Order dated 28-11-2005 for attachment of the plant and machinery and for detaining the goofs. Thg learned Chartered Accountant submits that the action of thg Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Division, Shri G. Giridharan is a high"handed action and the same is not supported by the provisions of law. He submits that the entire duty has already been paid besides 50% of penalty amount. In such a situation, the action of the Department to detain the goods or attachment of plant and machinery is against the fundamental rights of a citizen. He submits that it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and by the Board's Circular that the Department should not take any coercive steps when the stay application is pending before the Tribunal. He points out that the entire duty amount and 50% of the penalty amount have already been paid and balance amount towards penalty is Rs. 3 lakhs and interest is Rs. 2 lakhs. He submits that the value of the entire plant and machinery and goods is around Rs. 10 crores and the Revenue's interest is sufficiently safeguarded.

2. The learned SDR defends the action of the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the revenue was required to be recovered.

3. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, the Tribunal is of the view that the action of the Assistant Commissioner is clearly a high handed action, which was totally uncalled, for the reason that the entire duty amount and 50% of the penalty amount had already been paid by the party. Balance amount is only 5 lakhs. As a practice, the Tribunal does not insist on pre-deposit of pelalty ammunt. In the present case, 50% of the penalty amount has already been paid. Therefore in such a situation, the action of the Assistant Commissioner cannot be appreciated. The miscellaneous application is allowed. The stay application to come up for heaping on 10th January 2006. The Revenue is directed to lift the detention Order forthwith and not to take any"coercive steps till the disposal of the stay application. Registry is directed to issue this Order by hand to the learned Chartered Accountant forthwith.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT · 2005 Same Parties Methods India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S Peeran