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.

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Indo-japan Steels Ltd.

Collector of Central Excise vs indo-japan Steels Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 28, 1995
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/8926

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

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

indo-japan Steels Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(1996)(85)ELT126TriDel

Excerpt

.....excise, calcutta against the same order passed by the collector of central excise-ii, calcutta wherein it was held that the former was liable to pay central excise duty of rs. 1,40,681.20 on 639.460 mt of steel ingots cleared by them from their factory during the period february, 1981 to november 24, 1982 without payment of central excise duty leviable thereon. a penalty of rs. 10,000/- has been imposed by the collector under rule 173q on them. the party has filed an appeal on the ground that they are entitled to the benefit of exemption notification no. 66/73, dated 1-3-1973 and also contended that, penalty could not be imposed on them as there was no intention to evade payment of duty. the department has come up before us in appeal against the order on the ground that penalty imposed by the collector was not inadequate with reference to the duty evaded and in terms of rule 173q it should be more than that.2. when the cases were called, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee but there is a request from them for adjournment in the appeal filed by the department. since the matter is an old one and these are two connected matters, we have proceeded to pass this order after hearing ld. dr for the revenue.3. the collector after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances confirmed the duty and denied the benefit in terms of notification 66/72-c.e., dated 1-3-1973 on the ground that such scraps as fresh unused steel melting scraps which generally arise in an integrated ore-based steel plants and since the factory of the assessee is not an integrated ore-based steel plant, benefit under notification no. 66/73 cannot be extended to the party. in the circumstances he confirmed the duty amount and imposed penalty of rs. 10,000/-. on going through the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the observations made by the collector while imposing penalty of rs. 10,000/-, we find that penalty was just and reasonable and we are not inclined to.....

Full Judgment

1. These are two appeals filed respectively by M/s. lndo Japan Steels Ltd. and Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta against the same order passed by the Collector of Central Excise-II, Calcutta wherein it was held that the former was liable to pay Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,40,681.20 on 639.460 MT of steel ingots cleared by them from their factory during the period February, 1981 to November 24, 1982 without payment of Central Excise duty leviable thereon. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed by the Collector under Rule 173Q on them. The party has filed an appeal on the ground that they are entitled to the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 66/73, dated 1-3-1973 and also contended that, penalty could not be imposed on them as there was no intention to evade payment of duty. The Department has come up before us in appeal against the order on the ground that penalty imposed by the Collector was not inadequate with reference to the duty evaded and in terms of Rule 173Q it should be more than that.

2. When the cases were called, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee but there is a request from them for adjournment in the appeal filed by the department. Since the matter is an old one and these are two connected matters, we have proceeded to pass this order after hearing ld. DR for the Revenue.

3. The Collector after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances confirmed the duty and denied the benefit in terms of Notification 66/72-C.E., dated 1-3-1973 on the ground that such scraps as fresh unused steel melting scraps which generally arise in an integrated ore-based steel plants and since the factory of the assessee is not an integrated ore-based steel plant, benefit under Notification No. 66/73 cannot be extended to the party. In the circumstances he confirmed the duty amount and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. On going through the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the observations made by the Collector while imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/-, we find that penalty was just and reasonable and we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the adjudicating authority since we have considered all the aspects. In the view we have taken, both the appeals filed by the respective parties are hereby dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial