Dismissed
The Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/S.Abba Rubbers
Kerala HCC.E.Appeal/14/2006
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/3RD PHALGUNA, 1937
C.E.Appeal.No. 14 of 2006 ( )
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN FO 1283/2005 of CUSTOMS,EXCISE&SERVICE TAX APP.TRIBUNAL,BANGALORE DATED 25-07-2005
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT:
THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, TRIVANDRUM COMMISSIONERATE, I.C.E.BHAVAN, PRESS CLUB ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EXCISE
RESPONDENT(S):
M/S.ABBA RUBBERS, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, UMAYANALLOR (PO), KOLLAM.
THIS CENTRAL EXICISE APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DG
C.E.Appeal.No. 14 of 2006 ( )
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT.14.02.2000 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT DT.12.05.2000. ANNEXURE C: COPY OF THE ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL NO.82/2000 DT.25.11.2000. ANNEXURE D: COPY OF THE ORDER-IN-APPEAL NO.54-2003 DT.31.01.2003. ANNEXURE E: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER NO.1283 & 1284/2005 OF THE CESTAT BANGALORE DT.25.07.2005.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.
C.E.A.No.14 of 2006
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2016 J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.Heard the learned standing counsel for the Central Excise & Customs and the learned counsel for the respondent. The assesse and the Revenue moved the CESTAT against an appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals, Cochin. The assessee stood charged with clandestine movement of tread rubber and pre-cured tread rubber without payment of duty. The Commissioner, after due examination dropped the demand regarding 3,22,025/- as there was no₹ evidence available. The demand was however confirmed to the extent of evidence of shortage of raw materials. Penalty was imposed under Section 11 AC with regard to the demand confirmed and further penalty of 10,000/- under Rule 173Q. ₹
2.The CESTAT, after hearing the learned counsel for parties held
2
CEA.No.14/2006
that the Commissioner had noted that for the manufacture of the main item, the assessee has to procure besides raw sulphur, the main ingredient, namely, raw rubber and the same was not found short or having excess raw materials in the books. The CESTAT considering the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee held that while there is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue, the assessee had clearly explained with evidence that the material had come for replacement and evidence was produced. After examining the contents and assimilating the relevant facts, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the facts and materials which led to the impugned decision of the Tribunal, we do not find any ground to interfere in this appeal. This appeal, therefore, fails.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)
Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE)
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
DG
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Thiruvananthapuram
M/s.Abba Rubbers
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court