Arun Engineering Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

Arun Engineering vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Decided Apr 05, 2011

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/941976

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/941976
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Judge: The Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President &Amp; the Honourable Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member
Decided On: Apr 05, 2011
Case Number: Appeal No.E/435/2004 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.49/2003 (M-IV) dt. 17.12.2003 passed by
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arun Engineering

Advocate For the Appellant: R. Parthasarathy, Consultant. For the Respondent: T.H. Rao, SDR.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

Excerpt

per jyoti balasundaram 1. duty demand of rs.49,681/- together with interest by inclusion of the amortized cost of repair/service charges of moulds supplied to the assessees, manufacturers of plastic caps and lids of containers, by hindustan lever ltd. and penalty of rs.1000/- imposed on the assessees stand challenged in the present appeal. 2. we have heard both sides. it is the contention of the appellants that repair charges incurred long after inclusion of amortized cost of the moulds supplied free of cost by hindustan lever ltd. cannot be construed as cost of the moulds and therefore cannot be included in the cost of moulds so as to arrive at the amortized cost. we find that the adjudicating authority has decided the case ex-parte without recording any findings on the merits of the demand and the lower appellate authority has also not recorded any independent finding on merits except stating that, after the examination of case records and submissions, he is of the considered opinion that the repair charges are includible for the purpose of arriving at “amortized cost” and then extending the benefit of treating the total amount realized as cum duty price. since there is no finding on the merits of the demand by either of the authorities below, interest of justice require that impugned order be set aside and the case remitted for fresh decision to the adjudicating authority who shall pass fresh orders after extending reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in their defence. we order accordingly. 3. the appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.

Full Judgment

Per Jyoti Balasundaram

1. Duty demand of Rs.49,681/- together with interest by inclusion of the amortized cost of repair/service charges of moulds supplied to the assessees, manufacturers of plastic caps and lids of containers, by Hindustan Lever Ltd. and penalty of Rs.1000/- imposed on the assessees stand challenged in the present appeal.

2. We have heard both sides. It is the contention of the appellants that repair charges incurred long after inclusion of amortized cost of the moulds supplied free of cost by Hindustan Lever Ltd. cannot be construed as cost of the moulds and therefore cannot be included in the cost of moulds so as to arrive at the amortized cost. We find that the adjudicating authority has decided the case ex-parte without recording any findings on the merits of the demand and the lower appellate authority has also not recorded any independent finding on merits except stating that, after the examination of case records and submissions, he is of the considered opinion that the repair charges are includible for the purpose of arriving at “amortized cost” and then extending the benefit of treating the total amount realized as cum duty price. Since there is no finding on the merits of the demand by either of the authorities below, interest of justice require that impugned order be set aside and the case remitted for fresh decision to the adjudicating authority who shall pass fresh orders after extending reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in their defence. We order accordingly.

3. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chen... Same Parties Arun Engineering vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Same Subject MRTP Same Judge The Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President &Amp; t...