Universal Detergent Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Universal Detergent vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 21, 2006

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41883

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/41883
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Feb 21, 2006
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

Universal Detergent

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

1. when the stay application came up for hearing i have heard both sides and perused the record.2. it is the admitted position that duty amount in question that is rs. 1,73,650.05, was collected by the appellant from the buyers; but not deposited to the revenue. the appellant, of course, has a defence that he was entitled to small scale exemption. but that does not seem to be of assistance in the facts of the case. the appellant had taken modvat credit on the inputs and had collected duty from the buyers. in such a case, the amount collected should go to the revenue, be it under section 11a or 11d of the central excise act. thus, there is no merit in the present appeal. the appeal fails and is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. When the stay application came up for hearing I have heard both sides and perused the record.

2. It is the admitted position that duty amount in question that is Rs. 1,73,650.05, was collected by the appellant from the buyers; but not deposited to the revenue. The appellant, of course, has a defence that he was entitled to small scale exemption. But that does not seem to be of assistance in the facts of the case. The appellant had taken Modvat credit on the inputs and had collected duty from the buyers. In such a case, the amount collected should go to the revenue, be it under Section 11A or 11D of the Central Excise Act. Thus, there is no merit in the present appeal. The appeal fails and is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Universal Detergent vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge N T C.N.B.