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.

Kapil Brothers Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Kapil Brothers vs Collector of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 04, 1988
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/4488

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 Delhi
Decided On
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kapil Brothers

Respondent

Collector of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(1988)(18)LC437Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. the appellants are required to deposit central excise duty of rs. 2,75,459.52 and penalty of rs. 20.000/-. the period covered by the demand is 1981-82 and 1982-83. the show cause notice was issued some 3 years later, on 6-2-1986, by the superintendent of central excise. the show cause notice was under section 11 -a of the central excises & salt act, 1944, and it invoked the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 11-a which allowed the 5 years period for issue of the show cause notice where suppression of facts or fraud is alleged. after 28-12-1985, the amended section 11 -a required that such show cause notices should be issued only by the collector of central excise and not by an officer lower in rank than the collector. in a case where such a show cause notice was issued by the superintendent of central excise, the hon'ble gujarat high court in their judgment at 1988 (34) elt 442 (guj.) - gujarat state fertilizer co. ltd. and anr. v. union of india and ors., held that the show cause notice was in contravention of sub-section (1) of section 11-a of the act and was illegal and quash-able. in view of this legal position, the appellants have a prima facie point in their favour on the legal ground.2. accordingly, we allow the stay application and order waiver of the condition of pre-deposit as well as stay of recovery of the demand for duty as well as penalty till the disposal of the appeal.3. we also allow the 2 miscellaneous applications in which a prayer was made by the appellants for adding the aforesaid legal ground in the appeal and the stay application

Full Judgment

1. The appellants are required to deposit Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,75,459.52 and penalty of Rs. 20.000/-. The period covered by the demand is 1981-82 and 1982-83. The show cause notice was issued some 3 years later, on 6-2-1986, by the Superintendent of Central Excise. The show cause notice was under Section 11 -A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, and it invoked the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11-A which allowed the 5 years period for issue of the show cause notice where suppression of facts or fraud is alleged. After 28-12-1985, the amended Section 11 -A required that such show cause notices should be issued only by the Collector of Central Excise and not by an officer lower in rank than the Collector. In a case where such a show cause notice was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in their judgment at 1988 (34) ELT 442 (Guj.) - Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., held that the show cause notice was In contravention of Sub-section (1) of Section 11-A of the Act and was illegal and quash-able. In view of this legal position, the appellants have a prima facie point in their favour on the legal ground.

2. Accordingly, we allow the Stay Application and order waiver of the condition of pre-deposit as well as stay of recovery of the demand for duty as well as penalty till the disposal of the appeal.

3. We also allow the 2 Miscellaneous Applications in which a prayer was made by the appellants for adding the aforesaid legal ground in the appeal and the Stay Application

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial