Jai Plastics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Jai Plastics vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 18, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/43424

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/43424
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, Vice-, A T K.K.
Decided On: Aug 18, 2006
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jai Plastics

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

1. the applications for condonation of delay of three days in preferring the above appeals pre allowed, as we are satisfied with the explanation that the appeals could not be filed either on 4th or 5th july, 2006 due to torrential rains in mumbai.2. now we take up the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty confirmed against all three applicants and penalty on m/s. jyoti plastic works pvt. ltd. on hearing both sides, we find prima facie force in the submission of the applicants that while the case of the revenue is that m/s. n.d. patel and m/s. jai plastics are dummy units and that m/s. jyoti plastic works pvt. ltd. is the real unit and that the clearances of n.d. patel and jai plastics and required to be clubbed along with the clearances of jyoti plastic works for the purpose of determining eligibility to ssi exemption and consequent duty demand, the commissioner has confirmed demand against each of the three applicants, viz. rs. 6,15,017/- against jyoti plastic works, rs. 10,12,375/- against jay plastics and rs. 2,66,193/- against n.d. patel and imposed penalty of rs. 1,00,000/- on jyoti plastic works, which itself would show that the commissioner was prima facie accepting that both jai plastics and n.d. patel were existing units as duty demand cannot be confirmed against dummy unit. we also note that the commissioner has extended the benefit of ssi exemption to jai plastics during the year 1991-92 as seen from paragraph 36 of the impugned order.3. we, therefore, hold that a prima facie case for pre-deposit has been made out and accordingly dispense with pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeals.

Full Judgment

1. The applications for condonation of delay of three days in preferring the above appeals pre allowed, as we are satisfied with the explanation that the appeals could not be filed either on 4th or 5th July, 2006 due to torrential rains in Mumbai.

2. Now we take up the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty confirmed against all three applicants and penalty on M/s. Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt. Ltd. On hearing both sides, we find prima facie force in the submission of the applicants that while the case of the Revenue is that M/s. N.D. Patel and M/s. Jai Plastics are dummy units and that M/s. Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt. Ltd. is the real unit and that the clearances of N.D. Patel and Jai Plastics and required to be clubbed along with the clearances of Jyoti Plastic Works for the purpose of determining eligibility to SSI exemption and consequent duty demand, the Commissioner has confirmed demand against each of the three applicants, viz. Rs. 6,15,017/- against Jyoti Plastic Works, Rs. 10,12,375/- against Jay Plastics and Rs. 2,66,193/- against N.D. Patel and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on Jyoti Plastic Works, which itself would show that the Commissioner was prima facie accepting that both Jai Plastics and N.D. Patel were existing units as duty demand cannot be confirmed against dummy unit. We also note that the Commissioner has extended the benefit of SSI exemption to Jai Plastics during the year 1991-92 as seen from paragraph 36 of the impugned order.

3. We, therefore, hold that a prima facie case for pre-deposit has been made out and accordingly dispense with pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeals.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Jai Plastics vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Criminal Same Judge J Balasundaram, Vice-, A T K.K.