Mohan Generator and Pumps (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Mohan Generator and Pumps (P) Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 28, 2007

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/46545

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/46545
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: P Das
Decided On: Nov 28, 2007
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

Mohan Generator and Pumps (P) Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2008)(126)ECC197

Excerpt

1. the relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of generating set, a.c. generators and centrifugal water pumps falling under chapter sub-heading no. 8502.00, 8501.00 and 8413.10 of the central excise tariff act, 1985. on 3.11.1995, the central excise officers visited the appellants' factory and verified the stock. the said officers detected the excess stock of finished goods, which were seized by them. the adjudicating authority confiscated the seized goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of rs. 15,000/- and penalty of rs. 7,000/-.the commissioner (appeals) upheld the adjudication order.2. ld. advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that panchnama was prepared in irregular manner inasmuch as it is revealed from the affidavit that panchas were not present at the time of stock verification. he further submits that the seized goods were not complete finished goods and, therefore, they have not recorded in their rg-i register. he further submits that in any event, the redemption fine and penalty are excessive. he relied upon the decision of the tribunal in the following cases:commissioner of central excise, nashik v. vimal wire & metal industriesmazzindia (p) ltd. v. cce, meerut 3. ld. dr submits that non-accountal of the goods is established. he further submits that the tribunal in the case of pnp castings (p) ltd. v. cce, lucknow 2006 (194) elt 250 (trib.-delhi) held that confiscation, redemption fine and penalty are justified in case of the non-accountal of the 4. after hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen that on 3.11.95, the central excise officers detected the excess stock during the stock verification. in their reply to the show cause notice dated 2.1.97, the appellant explained the reason that the goods were in the process of manufacturing activities. i find that no explanation was given by the appellant before issue of show cause notice......

Full Judgment

1. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Generating Set, A.C. Generators and Centrifugal Water Pumps falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 8502.00, 8501.00 and 8413.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 3.11.1995, the Central Excise Officers visited the appellants' factory and verified the stock. The said officers detected the excess stock of finished goods, which were seized by them. The adjudicating authority confiscated the seized goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 15,000/- and penalty of Rs. 7,000/-.

The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order.

2. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that Panchnama was prepared in irregular manner inasmuch as it is revealed from the Affidavit that Panchas were not present at the time of stock verification. He further submits that the seized goods were not complete finished goods and, therefore, they have not recorded in their RG-I register. He further submits that in any event, the redemption fine and penalty are excessive. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the following cases:Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik v. Vimal Wire & Metal IndustriesMazzindia (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut 3. Ld. DR submits that non-accountal of the goods is established. He further submits that the Tribunal in the case of PNP Castings (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Lucknow 2006 (194) ELT 250 (Trib.-Delhi) held that confiscation, redemption fine and penalty are justified in case of the non-accountal of the 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen that on 3.11.95, the Central Excise officers detected the excess stock during the stock verification. In their reply to the show cause notice dated 2.1.97, the appellant explained the reason that the goods were in the process of manufacturing activities. I find that no explanation was given by the appellant before issue of show cause notice. There is contravention of rules for non-accountal of the goods.

Hence, confiscation and imposition of penalty are justified. However, I agree with the ld. Advocate that the amount of redemption fine and penalty are excessive. It is seen that the duty is involved of Rs. 16,829.00. So, the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). The Tribunal in the case of Vimal Wire & Metal Industries (supra) held that non-accountal of the goods in RG-I without mens rea only a minor offence and attracts a penalty of only Rs. 2,000/-under Rule 226 of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Accordingly, the penalty is reduced to Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only). The appeal is disposed of in the above manner.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Mohan Generator and Pumps (P) Ltd. vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge P Das