impeller India Vs. Collector of Central Excise

impeller India vs Collector of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 13, 1995

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/8572

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/8572
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: G Agarwal, M L Ram, R Kapoor
Decided On: Jul 13, 1995
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

impeller India

Respondent

Collector of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (1995)(51)ECC89

Excerpt

1. appearing on behalf of the appellants shri arun p. patankar, ld.counsel submitted that the appellants is a ssi unit and the revenue has already adjusted the amount of rs. 50,000 which was imposed as redemption fine. he voluntarily offered to deposit the 50% of the duty amount of rs. 1,35,750 submitting that the requirement to deposit the penalty amount should be dispensed with as the liquidity position of the appellants is not sound. in reply shri sachdeva, ld. sdr submitted that the appellants have not filed the documents regarding their alleged poor liquidity position. the court showed the balance sheet to him on the record.2. considered. from the impugned order we find that the collector of central excise has himself stated in the paragraph 7 of the impugned order that as far as aluminium scrap is concerned there was no method to arrive at the exact quantity and as such the same was fixed at 5%.3. under these circumstances, we accept the offer made by the ld.counsel for the appellants and direct the appellants to deposit the 50% of the said amount within 3 months from today and report compliance to the registry. on compliance the requirement to pre-deposit the balance amount of duty and penalty shall be deemed to have been waived and recovery proceedings if started shall remain stayed.

Full Judgment

1. Appearing on behalf of the appellants Shri Arun P. Patankar, Ld.

counsel submitted that the appellants is a SSI Unit and the Revenue has already adjusted the amount of Rs. 50,000 which was imposed as redemption fine. He voluntarily offered to deposit the 50% of the duty amount of Rs. 1,35,750 submitting that the requirement to deposit the penalty amount should be dispensed with as the liquidity position of the appellants is not sound. In reply Shri Sachdeva, Ld. SDR submitted that the appellants have not filed the documents regarding their alleged poor liquidity position. The court showed the balance sheet to him on the record.

2. Considered. From the impugned order we find that the Collector of Central Excise has himself stated in the paragraph 7 of the impugned order that as far as aluminium scrap is concerned there was no method to arrive at the exact quantity and as such the same was fixed at 5%.

3. Under these circumstances, we accept the offer made by the Ld.

counsel for the appellants and direct the appellants to deposit the 50% of the said amount within 3 months from today and report compliance to the Registry. On compliance the requirement to pre-deposit the balance amount of duty and penalty shall be deemed to have been waived and recovery proceedings if started shall remain stayed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties impeller India vs Collector of Central Excise Same Subject Excise Same Judge G Agarwal, M L Ram, R Kapoor