Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Maharashtra Steel Rolling Mills

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Maharashtra Steel Rolling Mills

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 28, 2008

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/46897

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/46897
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, Vice
Decided On: Jan 28, 2008
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

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Maharashtra Steel Rolling Mills

Legal References

Reported In: (2008)(128)ECC104

Excerpt

1. the revenue challenges the order passed by the commissioner (appeals) who has accepted the contention of the assessees herein that they had brought back duty paid goods, i.e. angles, into their factory for refining, remaking and reconditioning, and not for subjecting them to fresh manufacture, as contended by the excise authorities in the show cause notice proposing recovery of duty on freshly manufactured goods.3. i find that the show cause notice proposed recovery of duty of rs. 57,605/- from the respondents herein on the ground that angles could not be rectified and defects could be removed only by subjecting the angles to fresh manufacture. the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings initiated under the show cause notice, holding that such an averment was a bare averment not substantiated with reference to any technical material. before the commissioner (appeals) the revenue raised a fresh ground, namely, that the angles were subjected to fresh manufacture. after return from their original customers, they were sold to fresh customers and not returned to the same customers to whom the goods had been initially cleared. this is not a ground raised in the show cause notice and further, it is not enough to discharge the burden cast upon the revenue in such a situation, namely, that fresh manufacture had taken place in the factory of the assessees. before the tribunal the grounds have been further expanded to include a ground that duty was recovered from the customers, which shows that the goods was subjected to a process which amounts to manufacture and that the duty amount was recovered from their customers and, therefore, irrespective of the fact whether the goods were subjected to a process of manufacture or not, the assessees should have made over the amount collected by way of duty from their customers. these grounds figure for the first time in the appeal before the tribunal and these are not grounds on which the show cause notice is based.5. since.....

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue challenges the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who has accepted the contention of the assessees herein that they had brought back duty paid goods, i.e. angles, into their factory for refining, remaking and reconditioning, and not for subjecting them to fresh manufacture, as contended by the excise authorities in the show cause notice proposing recovery of duty on freshly manufactured goods.

3. I find that the show cause notice proposed recovery of duty of Rs. 57,605/- from the respondents herein on the ground that angles could not be rectified and defects could be removed only by subjecting the angles to fresh manufacture. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings initiated under the show cause notice, holding that such an averment was a bare averment not substantiated with reference to any technical material. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the Revenue raised a fresh ground, namely, that the angles were subjected to fresh manufacture. After return from their original customers, they were sold to fresh customers and not returned to the same customers to whom the goods had been initially cleared. This is not a ground raised in the show cause notice and further, it is not enough to discharge the burden cast upon the Revenue in such a situation, namely, that fresh manufacture had taken place in the factory of the assessees. Before the Tribunal the grounds have been further expanded to include a ground that duty was recovered from the customers, which shows that the goods was subjected to a process which amounts to manufacture and that the duty amount was recovered from their customers and, therefore, irrespective of the fact whether the goods were subjected to a process of manufacture or not, the assessees should have made over the amount collected by way of duty from their customers. These grounds figure for the first time in the appeal before the Tribunal and these are not grounds on which the show cause notice is based.

5. Since the Revenue has not discharged the burden of establishing that the goods, viz. angles, were subjected to fresh manufacture, the orders of the authorities below setting aside the demand and dropping the proceedings initiated in the show cause notice and for recovery of duty on such basis, are required to be sustained.

6. Accordingly, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. The cross objections are disposed of accordingly.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Maharashtra Steel Rolling M... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge J Balasundaram, Vice