Standard Industries Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Central Excise

Standard Industries Ltd. vs Collr. of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 26, 1993

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/7098

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/7098
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Oct 26, 1993
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Standard Industries Ltd.

Respondent

Collr. of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (1995)(75)ELT829Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the duty amount has not been quantified. however, they are imposed a penalty of rs. 8 lakhs, for which the stay application has been moved.2. shri srinivasan, the learned consultant, pleads that the order indicates that some duty will be worked out by the asstt. collector on the basis of the guidelines outlined in the order by him and that duty demand, which is yet to be worked out, has been confirmed by him under section 11a. such an action is not permissible under section 11a. if the duty specified in the show cause notice is sought to be modified, the revised duty amount, on adjudication, has to be determined by the adjudicating authority. however, he does not press for remand of the case on this ground. in any case, there is no mala fide in the case warranting imposition of penalty.3. after hearing both the sides, we find that duty demand has not been determined as yet. hence penalty cannot prima facie be enforced without quantifying the duty. we grant stay and waiver of deposit of penalty, leaving the liberty to the applicant to revive the stay application, as and when the duty amount is quantified.

Full Judgment

1. The duty amount has not been quantified. However, they are imposed a penalty of Rs. 8 lakhs, for which the stay application has been moved.

2. Shri Srinivasan, the learned consultant, pleads that the order indicates that some duty will be worked out by the Asstt. Collector on the basis of the guidelines outlined in the order by him and that duty demand, which is yet to be worked out, has been confirmed by him under Section 11A. Such an action is not permissible under Section 11A. If the duty specified in the show cause notice is sought to be modified, the revised duty amount, on adjudication, has to be determined by the adjudicating authority. However, he does not press for remand of the case on this ground. In any case, there is no mala fide in the case warranting imposition of penalty.

3. After hearing both the sides, we find that duty demand has not been determined as yet. Hence penalty cannot prima facie be enforced without quantifying the duty. We grant stay and waiver of deposit of penalty, leaving the liberty to the applicant to revive the stay application, as and when the duty amount is quantified.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Standard Industries Ltd. vs Collr. of Central Excise Same Subject MRTP