M\/s Mazda Exports (India) Versus Commissioner, GST, Ludhiana
Central Excise
2018 (4) TMI 1451 – CESTAT CHANDIGARH – TMI
CESTAT CHANDIGARH – AT
Dated:- 17-4-2018
E\/60112\/2018 – FINAL ORDER NO: 62239\/2018
Central Excise
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
\nShri. Sudeep Singh, Advocate- for the appellant
\nShri. Vijay Gupta, AR- for the respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Ashok Jindal:
\nThe appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein goods has been seized and confiscated, thereafter, allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and penalty.
\n2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of tractor parts and agricultural implements parts under the brand name of 'Five Star Super Spares'. As Five Sta<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ive Star Super Spare' which is not similar to 'Five Star' and 'Five Star Super Spare is the brand of the appellant only, therefore, they were entitled to avail benefit of SSI exemption. Ín alternate, it is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the appellant is that all goods are meant for export and the appellant is exporting the said goods, therefore, they are not liable to pay duty on the said goods, hence, they cannot be seized. It is further submitted that out of the total goods seized having value of Rs. 4,76,080\/, the value of the goods which are of agriculture implements is 2,83,192\/- on which no duty is payable and after allowing the abatement, the value of goods on which duty is payable of Rs. 1,35,022\/-. In that circumstance, th<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n peal is taken up for consideration only on the issue of imposition of redemption fine and penalty. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Mazda Exports (India) Versus Commissioner, GST, LudhianaCentral Excise2018 (4) TMI 1451 – CESTAT CHANDIGARH – TMICESTAT CHANDIGARH – ATDated:- 17-4-2018E\/60112\/2018 – FINAL ORDER NO: 62239\/2018Central ExciseMr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri. Sudeep Singh, Advocate- for the appellant Shri. Vijay Gupta, AR- for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against … Continue reading “M\/s Mazda Exports (India) Versus Commissioner, GST, Ludhiana”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11609","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11609","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11609"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11609\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11609"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11609"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11609"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. As the appellant is using the brand name of third party and not paying duty thereon, in that circumstances, the goods are held liable for confiscation. Although, the appellant is exporting the said goods but the appellant has not followed any procedure i.e. payment of duty, and claiming the rebate claim or goods have been exported under bond. In that circumstance, I hold that the goods are liable for confiscation.
\n8. Further, I find that the fact is on record that out of total value of the goods of Rs. 4,76,080\/- the goods worth Rs. 2,83,192\/- are agriculture equipments on which, no duty is payable by the appellant. In that circumstances,<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n