Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sail-cmo Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Sail-cmo vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta Decided May 19, 2006
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/42685

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Judge
Decided On
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

Sail-cmo

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

1. heard both sides. the appellants transferred billets to various parties under cover of central excise invoices for converting them into tor steel. such tor steels were sold by them to their buyers and were delivered directly from the premises of the converters accompanied by the central excise invoices issued by the converters who paid duty of rs. 300/- pmt under the compounded levy scheme under section 3a of the central excise act, 1944. in all these cases, sales were effected to various state government agencies, border roads etc. on a consolidated price i.e. all inclusive price as agreed upon between the buyers and the sellers, i.e. the appellants. a show-cause notice was issued proposing to recover amounts representing central excise duty under the provisions of section 11d of the central excise act, 1944. we find that the recoveries to be effected under section 11d, are not covered under the provisions of section 35f of the central excise act, 1944.therefore, no predeposit of the said amount is called for. in this view of the matter, petition is allowed. therefore, the application is disposed off accordingly.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides. The appellants transferred billets to various parties under cover of Central Excise Invoices for converting them into TOR steel. Such TOR steels were sold by them to their buyers and were delivered directly from the premises of the converters accompanied by the Central Excise Invoices issued by the converters who paid duty of Rs. 300/- PMT under the Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In all these cases, sales were effected to various State Government Agencies, Border Roads etc. on a consolidated price i.e. all inclusive price as agreed upon between the buyers and the sellers, i.e. the appellants. A show-cause notice was issued proposing to recover amounts representing Central Excise duty under the provisions of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. We find that the recoveries to be effected under Section 11D, are not covered under the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Therefore, no predeposit of the said amount is called for. In this view of the matter, petition is allowed. Therefore, the application is disposed off accordingly.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial