|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 2676 Records
-
2007 (12) TMI 335
Issues involved: Unjust enrichment, refund of duty paid second time, seizure of goods, plea of unjust enrichment, clearance of goods on payment of duty.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, involved a case where goods were cleared on payment of duty, but later returned by the customer due to defects. The goods were stored in the appellant's office premises and seized under the belief that duty was not paid. Subsequently, documents were produced proving the initial duty payment, leading to the setting aside of confiscation and penalty. However, the appellants were forced to deposit duty a second time, for which they sought a refund. The refund was denied on the basis of lack of evidence showing that duty was not recovered from customers, resulting in the transfer of the refund to the welfare fund.
The appellants contended that the plea of unjust enrichment cannot be raised if duty is paid subsequent to goods clearance, unless there is proof of subsequent duty recovery. As it was acknowledged that duty was initially paid and the goods were seized under the mistaken belief of non-payment, with subsequent duty payment being forced, the plea of unjust enrichment was deemed invalid. Since the initial duty payment was accepted and not being claimed for refund, the question of duty recovery did not arise. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision was overturned, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
-
2007 (12) TMI 334
Issues involved: Appeal against imposition of penalty and demand of interest on availing credit in respect of capital goods while also claiming depreciation under the Income-tax Act.
Issue 1: Demand of Interest
The appellant availed credit on capital goods and also claimed depreciation under the Income-tax Act. The revenue raised an enquiry regarding this, leading the appellant to reverse the credit. A show cause notice was issued for penalty and interest. The appellant argued that interest is payable only if the manufacturer fails to pay the determined amount within three months from the notice of demand. Since the duty was paid before the notice, the demand of interest was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal concurred, citing Rule 57U, which states the liability for interest if payment is not made within three months from the notice. As the duty was paid prior to the notice, the demand for interest was set aside.
Issue 2: Imposition of Penalty
The appellant mistakenly claimed depreciation under the Income-tax Act while availing credit on capital goods. Upon realizing the error, the appellant promptly reversed the credit. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty, which the appellant contested, arguing against allegations of fraud or wilful misstatement. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was aware of the availability of credit on capital goods if depreciation under the Income-tax Act was not claimed. Considering the circumstances, the penalty was reduced from Rs. 25,600 to Rs. 5,000, as it was deemed appropriate to meet the ends of justice.
Conclusion:
The appeal was disposed of with the decision to set aside the demand of interest due to the duty being paid before the notice, and to reduce the penalty from Rs. 25,600 to Rs. 5,000 based on the appellant's prompt action upon realizing the mistake.
-
2007 (12) TMI 333
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai ruled in favor of M/s. Ajinomoto India Pvt. Ltd. regarding the demand of duty of Rs. 7,97,210/- for repacked Monosodium Glutamate. The tribunal noted that the company's use of the brand name 'AJI-NO-MOTO' was contested by the Revenue, but the appellants argued that it was their own property due to ownership by Japanese and Thai companies. The tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for the duty and penalty amounts.
-
2007 (12) TMI 332
Cenvat/Modvat credit - Inputs - Board Circular No. 831/8/2006-CX. dated 26-7-2006 - Held that: - the Board categorically clarified that the retrospective amendment is aimed at regularizing availment of credits at two stages. As such, the appellant’s case is squarely covered by the Taxation of Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006 and Board’s Circular dated 26-7-2006 - The retrospective amendment in Rule 16 is aimed at facilitating “wire drawing units”, which had paid a sum equal to the duty leviable on “drawn wire“ after availing the credit of duty paid on inputs for the said period. It is aimed at regularizing availment of credits at two stages and payment of an amount representing duty at one stage - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2007 (12) TMI 331
The case involves a classification dispute regarding a 'button bag' made of paper. The appellant argued it should be classified as an 'envelope of paper,' while the Revenue claimed it should be an 'article of paper' for offices or shops. The tribunal found the item to be an 'envelope of paper' as it is used to carry spare buttons, not for correspondence. The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, waiving pre-deposit and stay of recovery for duty and penalty amounts.
-
2007 (12) TMI 329
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of MODVAT/CENVAT credit on LSHS and additive fuel oil used to generate electricity and steam diverted outside the factory.
2. Duty liability of Hydrogen gas manufactured and captively consumed in producing steam cleared to sister units.
3. Admissibility of credit on LSHS relatable to electricity lost in conversion from AC to DC power.
4. Validity of penalties and interest imposed.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Admissibility of MODVAT/CENVAT Credit on LSHS and Additive Fuel Oil:
The appellants argued that they were entitled to credit for the entire LSHS used, including that portion used to generate electricity and steam supplied outside the factory. They contended that there was no prohibition on using electricity/steam produced from MODVAT availed inputs for purposes other than manufacturing final products, including transfer to other factories. The Commissioner denied credit based on Rules 57C and 57D(2) for different periods, which the appellants argued was incorrect. They claimed that their eligibility for credit had been upheld in previous orders (Final Order Nos. 1242-1245/2000). The Tribunal held that inputs used for generating electricity or steam, which were then diverted outside the factory, were not eligible for credit, as per Rule 57B(iv) effective from 1-3-1997. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned demands were sustainable based on the legal provisions and previous judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in CCE v. Solaris Chemtech Ltd. (2007).
2. Duty Liability of Hydrogen Gas:
The appellant contested the demand for duty on Hydrogen gas used in the production of steam cleared to sister units. The Tribunal referenced the decision in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise Pune (1994) and concluded that intermediate products removed to sister units manufacturing and clearing dutiable final products need not pay duty. Therefore, the demand on Hydrogen gas was not sustainable.
3. Admissibility of Credit on LSHS Relatable to Electricity Lost in Conversion from AC to DC Power:
The Tribunal found that the loss of power in converting AC to DC was an inevitable process loss and that credit could not be denied on inputs for such waste. Consequently, the demand on this account was vacated.
4. Validity of Penalties and Interest Imposed:
The Tribunal noted that penalties under Section 11AC could not be imposed for periods prior to 28-9-1996. It was also found that the interest demanded without invoking Section 11AB in the Show Cause Notices was unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that penalties were not justified where demands arose from different norms adopted by the assessee and the department. The Tribunal remanded the case for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee to provide actual figures with supporting records for LSHS consumption.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, directing the original authority to adjudicate the cases afresh in light of the Tribunal's observations. The decision emphasized the inadmissibility of credit for inputs used to generate electricity or steam diverted outside the factory, the non-sustainability of duty on Hydrogen gas, the acceptance of process losses in power conversion, and the need for proper quantification of LSHS consumption. Penalties and interest were also addressed, with specific instructions for re-assessment.
-
2007 (12) TMI 328
Issues:
1. Refund of excess duty paid due to revision in rate of duty.
2. Applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment.
3. Interpretation of provisions regarding refund claims under Central Excise Act.
Issue 1: Refund of excess duty paid due to revision in rate of duty:
The case involved a revenue appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) decision allowing the assessee's appeal for a refund of excess duty paid on betel nut powder. The assessee had paid duty at 18% ad valorem, unaware of the reduction to 15% ad valorem under a notification. Upon realizing the error, the assessee issued credit notes to dealers for the excess amount collected. The revenue contended that duty is paid at the time of clearance and only the ultimate burden bearer is eligible for a refund. The revenue relied on previous decisions to support their claim that post-clearance transactions do not concern Central Excise authorities. The Tribunal found that the excess amount collected by the assessee had been repaid, following the judgment in Addison & Co. v. C.C.E. The Tribunal also considered the Apex Court's decision in Mohd. Ekram Khan & Sons v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, holding that payment through credit notes constitutes a sale, making the issue of credit notes a valid form of payment. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was eligible for a refund, dismissing the revenue's appeal.
Issue 2: Applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment:
The respondents argued that the product they manufactured was not excisable, making the collection of excise duty unconstitutional. They contended that they were not liable to pay any duty and, therefore, the provisions of Section 11B regarding refund claims did not apply. Citing various judicial authorities, they supported their argument that the proceedings against them should abate. The Tribunal considered the argument in light of the judgment in Addison & Co. v. C.C.E., where the High Court allowed the appeal of an assessee whose refund claim was rejected, even though credit notes were issued for the excess amount collected. The Tribunal found that the excess amount collected had been repaid by the assessee, and the issue of credit notes constituted a valid form of payment, eliminating the possibility of unjust enrichment.
Issue 3: Interpretation of provisions regarding refund claims under Central Excise Act:
The revenue relied on Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Jaipur to argue that the refund claim should be rejected as the duty incidence had been passed on to customers at the time of clearance. However, the Tribunal distinguished the facts of the present case, where the excess amount collected was not differential excise duty since the goods were not excisable. The Tribunal found that the excess amount collected had been repaid by the assessee, following the precedent set in Mohd. Ekram Khan & Sons, which held that payment through credit notes amounted to a sale. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the revenue's appeal for lack of merit.
-
2007 (12) TMI 327
Issues:
Challenge against dropping of demand of duty on 'induction furnace' installed, erected, and commissioned in a factory. Whether the respondents can be considered as 'manufacturers' of the furnace due to their involvement in the erection and commissioning process.
Analysis:
In this appeal, the Revenue challenges the dropping of duty demand on an 'induction furnace' installed at a factory. The furnace was supplied in CKD/SKD condition by M/s. ABB and assembled, erected, and commissioned by M/s. ABB engineers at the factory premises of M/s. RVS. The Revenue argues that the respondents should be considered 'manufacturers' due to their employment of supervisory personnel and laborers during the process. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that property in the furnace transferred to M/s. RVS only upon erection and commissioning by M/s. ABB engineers. The Revenue claims that M/s. ABB were mere hired laborers and that the complete furnace was manufactured by the respondents. The learned SDR reiterated these statements while the Counsel defended the impugned order.
It is noted that in a similar case involving M/s. ABB and M/s. BIL, the proceedings against M/s. BIL were dropped by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal found that M/s. BIL were in a similar position as the present respondents regarding the furnace's erection and installation supplied by M/s. ABB in CKD/SKD condition. The appellate Commissioner acknowledged this fact in the impugned order.
After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). It was established that M/s. ABB supplied the furnace in CKD/SKD condition and their engineers undertook the erection and commissioning services. The Tribunal deemed the argument of treating the respondents as manufacturers due to providing labor for civil works as flimsy and unsupported by valid reasons. The Order-in-Original accepted by the department in a similar case serves as a precedent, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
In conclusion, the appeal failed, and the Tribunal dismissed the same after thorough consideration of the facts and legal arguments presented during the proceedings.
-
2007 (12) TMI 326
Cenvat/Modvat credit - Inputs found short - Held that: - In the present case, by any standards, the shortage is very much within the range. If the entire quantity of inputs received in the factory during the material period is taken, the shortage of issues for manufacture of final product is only 0.66%. If only the duty-paid inputs received in the factory during such period are considered, the shortage is only to the extent of 0.35% - it would be appropriate to hold that it is unreasonable to disallow to the assessee Modvat credit on the inputs found short - appeal allowed.
-
2007 (12) TMI 325
Issues:
Stay applications and appeals regarding Order-in-Original No. 09/2006 dated 30-11-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad-IV Commissionerate.
Analysis:
1. Duty and Penalty Imposition:
- The impugned order required the appellants to deposit specific duties and penalties.
- Central Excise duty confirmed at Rs. 12,75,04,322/- with additional penalties imposed.
- Confiscation of cash, finished goods, raw materials, and other items with redemption fines and penalties.
2. Representation and Allegations:
- Advocates represented both the appellants and the Revenue.
- Allegations of evasion and fraud by a group of manufacturing units were presented by the Revenue.
- Modus operandi involving manipulation in invoicing and clearance procedures was highlighted.
3. Exemption Dispute and Legal Arguments:
- Dispute centered on the availability of exemption under Notification No. 5/98.
- Legal arguments focused on the fictitious entity SP Group and duty confirmation against it.
- Reference to relevant case law and contentions regarding duty quantification and demand.
4. Judicial Findings and Legal Infirmities:
- Central Excise duty confirmed jointly on multiple manufacturing units without individual apportionment.
- Legal infirmities identified in the demand process and lack of clarity on duty recipients.
- Contrasting legal views on joint liability versus individual unit responsibility.
5. Final Orders and Directions:
- Tribunal found legal flaws in the duty demand process due to the fictitious nature of the SP Group.
- Decision to waive the balance amount of duty/interest and penalties pending appeal disposal.
- Early hearing scheduled for further examination of the case in January 2008.
In conclusion, the judgment addressed complex issues of duty imposition, exemption disputes, legal arguments, and judicial findings regarding joint liability. The decision highlighted legal infirmities in the demand process and directed the waiver of pending amounts pending appeal resolution, emphasizing the need for further examination and early hearing of the case.
-
2007 (12) TMI 324
Issues:
1. Liability to pay duty on crossing the exemption limit.
2. Entitlement to exemption under notification No. 74/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93.
3. Determination of whether the goods were intended for use by a Department of the Chhattisgarh Government.
4. Imposition of penalties under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Issue 1: Liability to pay duty on crossing the exemption limit
The appellant, a State Electricity Board engaged in manufacturing PCC poles, was found to have crossed the exemption limit of Rs. 100 lakhs for the financial year 2005-06. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued for demand of differential duty, interest, and penalties. The lower authority determined the duty amount, education cess, and imposed penalties. The appeal contested this decision, focusing on the entitlement to exemption under a specific notification. The appellate authority noted the appellant did not dispute crossing the exemption limit and that duty becomes payable beyond this limit. The appeal centered on the eligibility for exemption under a different notification.
Issue 2: Entitlement to exemption under notification No. 74/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93
The appellant claimed entitlement to exemption under notification No. 74/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93, asserting that as a State Government factory, they were exempt from duty. The authority confirmed that the factory belonged to the Chhattisgarh Government, meeting the first condition for exemption. However, to qualify for exemption, the goods must be intended for use by a Department of that Government. The appellant provided evidence that the PCC poles were used by Assistant Engineers of the Electricity Board, indicating internal usage. The authority then deliberated on whether the Electricity Board constituted a Department of the State Government.
Issue 3: Determination of whether the goods were intended for use by a Department of the Chhattisgarh Government
The authority analyzed the nature of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (CSEB) and its status as a Department of the Chhattisgarh Government. It was established that the CSEB was created under specific Acts of Parliament, distinct from a Department of the State Government governed by the Constitution. While the goods were consumed internally, the distinction between the Electricity Board and a Government Department was crucial. The authority concluded that the CSEB did not qualify as a Department of the State Government, rendering the appellant ineligible for exemption under the notification.
Issue 4: Imposition of penalties under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944
Regarding penalties, the authority upheld the penalty under Rule 25 for violating Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, the penalty under Section 11AC was deemed unwarranted due to the absence of necessary conditions for its imposition. Consequently, the penalty under Section 11AC was set aside, while the penalty under Rule 25 was upheld. The authority disposed of the appeal based on these findings, affirming the duty payment and penalties in line with the judgment.
This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment outlines the issues surrounding the liability for duty payment, entitlement to exemption under specific notifications, determination of usage by a Government Department, and the imposition of penalties under relevant legal provisions. The authority's detailed examination and reasoning provide clarity on the appellant's obligations and entitlements, ensuring a thorough and just resolution of the appeal.
-
2007 (12) TMI 301
Export obligation - export of garments - petitioner is unable to fulfil the export obligation of 100% of the quota allotted, resulting in forfeiture of the bank guarantee - petitioner claims to have received letters Annexures “B1”, “B2” and “B3”, from the suppliers of fabrics expressing their inability to supply the fabric due to incessant rains in Tamilnadu -.There is no material whatsoever to establish that the letters Annexures “B1”, “B2” and “B3” were in fact from suppliers who had entered into valid contracts with the petitioner to supply the fabric – Held that:- decision to extend the benefit of the claim of force-majeure being dependant upon the facts and circumstances and material on record in a particular case, it goes without saying that any decision rendered in that case, would not, unless facts and circumstances are shown to be identical, have application in another case, writ petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2007 (12) TMI 279
Wrong approach of High Court- The Assessee did not carry the matter in appeal to the Commissioner. Assessee straightway proceeded with the writ petition which was allowed by the High Court. Held that- The said appeal will not be dismissed on the ground of limitation if it is filed within the stipulated period. It will be disposed of on its own merits, influenced by the impugned judgment of the High Court.
-
2007 (12) TMI 233
Issues involved: Quashing of criminal proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C due to change in assessment of evasion of central excise duty and increase in minimum monetary limit for prosecution.
Details of the judgment:
Issue 1: Change in assessment of evasion of central excise duty
The petitioner sought to quash the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent based on a complaint for evasion of central excise duty. The initial demand was Rs. 27,39,678/-, but after a remand order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, the evasion amount was fixed at Rs. 4,03,000/-. The petitioner argued that the complaint became infructuous due to the change in assessment, as the initial basis for the complaint was no longer valid. The respondent, through their counsel, admitted that the complaint had indeed become infructuous in light of the Tribunal's order and the subsequent assessment below the minimum limit required for prosecution.
Issue 2: Increase in minimum monetary limit for prosecution
The Board's Letter dated 4-4-2006 raised the minimum monetary limit for launching prosecution for evasion of excise duty from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 25,00,000/-. Despite the initial assessment being above the new limit, the subsequent assessment after remand fell below the revised threshold. The petitioner contended that the complaint should be dismissed as infructuous due to the change in assessment and the fact that the evasion amount was now below the minimum limit for prosecution. The respondent did not dispute these facts and acknowledged that the complaint was no longer valid for prosecution.
The Court agreed with the petitioner's arguments, noting that the order of remand by the Tribunal had not been challenged by the department. Any revision to the assessment above the minimum limit could potentially provide a fresh cause of action for prosecution, but it would not salvage the already initiated proceedings. Consequently, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings in E.O.C.C. No. 362 of 2002 on the grounds of it being infructuous. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed as a result of this decision.
-
2007 (12) TMI 230
Settlement Commission - power of Commission - Held that:- The petitioner had approached this Court on the ground that no such concession was made by the learned Senior Counsel whereupon this Court had directed the petitioner to file an affidavit of the Senior Counsel, which was not filed, therefore, the Court did not interfere with it leaving it open to the petitioner to file a review application before the Settlement Commission.
The Commission insisted upon filing of the affidavit by the learned Senior Counsel, which was not done, therefore, the Commission was justified in rejecting the review application. Even otherwise, we are of the considered opinion that under Section 32F(7) of the Act as it stood during the relevant period before its substitution by Section 122 of the Finance Act, 2007 (Act No. 2 of 2007) w.e.f. 1-6-2007 the Commission had power to pass such order as it deems fit which includes a power to remand the matter for fresh adjudication. Moreover the earlier order of this Court will also come in the way of the petitioner.
-
2007 (12) TMI 229
Issues:
1. Repeated summons of Managing Director to Varanasi for Customs Act proceedings.
2. Alleged lack of knowledge of Managing Director about company's operations in Varanasi.
3. Petitioner's request to send an Officer with direct knowledge instead.
4. Complaint regarding defrayal of traveling costs for witnesses.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner raised concerns about the repeated summoning of their Managing Director to Varanasi for proceedings under the Customs Act, despite ongoing proceedings against the company in Kolkata related to the same consignment. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance but clarified that it cannot dictate how investigations should be conducted or whom the Investigating Officer should summon. However, the Court allowed for representations to be made if any officer faced genuine difficulty in attending the summons, emphasizing that the Investigating Agency holds the authority in this matter.
2. The petitioner contended that the Managing Director in Varanasi lacked knowledge about the company's operations there and sought to send an Officer with direct knowledge instead. The Court directed the appropriate authority to consider the representation made by the petitioner regarding this issue and make a decision in accordance with the law. It was highlighted that a reasoned order should be passed on such representations to address the concerns raised by the petitioner effectively.
3. In response to the petitioner's complaint about the traveling costs of witnesses being borne by the respondents, the Court instructed the concerned authority to examine this aspect of the matter. This direction aimed to ensure that all relevant issues, including the financial implications of witness travel, are appropriately addressed and resolved by the authorities involved in the proceedings.
4. The Court disposed of the writ petition at that stage without requiring any additional affidavits, as agreed by the respondents. The allegations presented in the petition were deemed to have been denied, and the parties were instructed to receive a xerox certified copy of the order upon completing all necessary formalities. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised by the petitioner and the Court's directions to address these concerns within the framework of the law and investigative procedures.
-
2007 (12) TMI 228
Cenvat/Modvat - Whether Modvat credit is admissible under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, on glass bottles and plastic crates as packing material for aerated water when the value thereof is not included (i.e. of bottles/crates as such neither declared nor could be ascertained) in assessable value of the final product i.e. aerated water?
Held that:- There is no merit in these petitions and the same are liable to be declined. We find that under Rule 57A of the Rules, Modvat credit is admissible on the specified inputs used in the manufacture of final product. Explanation (iii) to Rule 57A of the Rules define that inputs does not include packaging material if its value has not been included during the preceding financial year in the cost of assessable value. The Tribunal has categorically found as a fact that the cost of packing material has been included in the assessable value although on instalment basis and, therefore, the assessees' are entitled to Modvat credit of duty. The plea taken by the assessees' that the cost of glass bottles and plastic crates was included in the aerated water could not be rebutted by the revenue. W.P. dismissed.
-
2007 (12) TMI 227
Writ jurisdiction - relief of writ of prohibition seeked prohibiting the respondent from proceeding further in relation to show cause notice No. 13/2001, dated 3-7-2001 - Held that:- In this case, as already stated, so many violations, which are factual in issue, have been alleged against the appellant and the appellant was only required to submit his explanation to the alleged violations, it is not expected a writ Court on the basis of an affidavit and counter affidavit, resolve the disputed questions of fact. Furthermore, what is impugned is only a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit its reply. It is not a final determination. The respondent would have very well dropped the proceedings, if the cause to be shown by the petitioner are well founded. Hence, we are not able to appreciate the argument of the learned counsel Mr. Sriram Panchu that the appellant need not undergo the ordeal of replying to the show cause notice.
Thus there is no point merit consideration in the writ appeal and the writ appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant is hereby given time upto 21-1-2008 to file their objections if any to the impugned show cause notice with relevant supporting materials, if they are so advised and thereupon it is for the respondent to proceed further in accordance with law.
-
2007 (12) TMI 223
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - BIFR unit - Held that:- Since the company is under BIFR, we are of the view that ends of justice would be subserved if the petitioner assessee is directed to submit the title deeds of the properties belonging to the Group Company with the Registrar of the CESTAT within four weeks. The title deeds shall remain with the Registrar for a period of four weeks after the date of the decision by the CESTAT.
-
2007 (12) TMI 222
Duty demand - whether the Department was entitled to proceed against the land and building purchased by the present appellant from the auction purchaser in respect of non-payment of excise duty by M/s. Devki Steels (P) Ltd. - Held that:- appellant purchased only land and building and not the plant and machinery - Interpretation of Rule 230 also arose for determination before the High Court. None of these questions were decided by the High Court. It dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that the appellant herein was not the owner as the sale deed was not filed - The question whether excise duty would be a charge on the property, was not raised before the High Court. However, we grant liberty to the Department to raise the said question also before the High Court subject to the Department making proper averments in that regard - Matter remitted back - Decided in favour of assessee.
........
|
9911796707
