Kiranotics India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Kiranotics India vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 09, 2007

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/44556

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/44556
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice-
Decided On: Jan 09, 2007
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kiranotics India

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

.....filed this appeal against the imposition of penalty and redemption fine. the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of voltage stabilizer and were availing the benefit of small-scale exemption notification. the officer of revenue visited the factory of the appellant and certain unaccounted goods found in the factory which were seized and it was also found that certain goods were cleared to customers without the cover of any invoice or challan. no demand is raised in the show cause notice nor confirmed only the penalty was imposed on the ground that the appellants were not maintaining proper record.3. the contention of the appellant is that even after taking the value of unaccounted goods the appellants were within the limit of clearance prescribed under small-scale exemption notification. the appellants are maintaining certain private records and by comparing with the existing goods the revenue came to the conclusion that certain goods were not accounted for. the contention is that no demand is made, therefore, the goods are not liable for confiscation and appellants were not liable for penalty.4. the contention of the revenue is that as the appellants were bound to maintain the proper record, therefore, are liable for penalty and unaccounted goods are liable for confiscation.5. in this case, there is no demand made from the appellant. in the show cause notice, the only allegation is that the appellants are not maintaining proper record of their production and, therefore, they are liable for penal action under rule 173q and rule 209 of central excise rules. it is not disputed by the revenue that the appellants were working under small-scale exemption notification and it is not the case of the revenue that by adding the value of the unaccounted goods, the appellant cross the value of clearance prescribed under the small-scale exemption notification. the appellant also relied upon the decision in the case of dayal industries v. cce reported in 2006 (199).....

Full Judgment

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the imposition of penalty and redemption fine. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of voltage stabilizer and were availing the benefit of small-scale exemption notification. The officer of Revenue visited the factory of the appellant and certain unaccounted goods found in the factory which were seized and it was also found that certain goods were cleared to customers without the cover of any invoice or challan. No demand is raised in the show cause notice nor confirmed only the penalty was imposed on the ground that the appellants were not maintaining proper record.

3. The contention of the appellant is that even after taking the value of unaccounted goods the appellants were within the limit of clearance prescribed under small-scale exemption notification. The appellants are maintaining certain private records and by comparing with the existing goods the Revenue came to the conclusion that certain goods were not accounted for. The contention is that no demand is made, therefore, the goods are not liable for confiscation and appellants were not liable for penalty.

4. The contention of the Revenue is that as the appellants were bound to maintain the proper record, therefore, are liable for penalty and unaccounted goods are liable for confiscation.

5. In this case, there is no demand made from the appellant. In the show cause notice, the only allegation is that the appellants are not maintaining proper record of their production and, therefore, they are liable for penal action under Rule 173Q and Rule 209 of Central Excise Rules. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the appellants were working under small-scale exemption notification and it is not the case of the Revenue that by adding the value of the unaccounted goods, the appellant cross the value of clearance prescribed under the small-scale exemption notification. The appellant also relied upon the decision in the case of Dayal Industries v. CCE reported in 2006 (199) E.L.T. 237.

The Tribunal in this case held that for small scale exemption, records or production and clearance not required to be maintained, therefore, is not liable for penalty. In view of the fact that in the present case, it is not the case of the Revenue the appellant cross the limit provided under the notification and no demand has been made. Therefore, in view of the above decision, the imposition of penalty and redemption fine is set aside, the appeal is allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Kiranotics India vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S Kang, Vice-